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

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

moved that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the third time and passed.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to the debate on Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to medical assistance in dying.

I want to start by reminding all members that this is important legislation. We as parliamentarians have a court-imposed deadline of December 18 to pass this legislation. This legislation would help prevent the suffering of Canadians. Even if there were no court-imposed deadline, we would have a moral obligation to see it passed.

I am really disappointed, to be frank, to see my colleagues across the aisle delaying the bill, increasing the chances that the government misses the court-imposed deadline and prolongs the suffering of Canadians in denying them the autonomy to choose medical assistance in dying.

I am very disheartened to see members of the Conservative Party of Canada continue their delay tactics to slow this legislation. I saw it at the justice committee and we are seeing it again now. We know that the majority of Canadians believe that MAID is a basic human right. More than 300,000 people participated in consultations earlier this year.

The Quebec Superior Court's deadline is now two weeks away as of today. Conservatives are now trying to undermine the urgency of the situation. They are ignoring the very real consequences that their inaction could have on those who are suffering in this country. I think it is also important to remind members where the content of this legislation came from and the process the government went through in January in developing this legislation.

Bill C-7 was informed by the Truchon decision itself, Canadian and international reports, the experience of existing international regimes, and the government's consultations on MAID held in January and February of this year.

I had the opportunity to participate in some of these round tables that were hosted across the country including in my home of Toronto, where I am speaking from, and in Winnipeg. In these consultations, our team spoke with 125 stakeholders including regulatory bodies, legal experts, doctors, nurse practitioners, representatives of the disability community, and indigenous persons and their representatives. They shared their experiences and insights into MAID and its implementation in Canada over the last four years.

In order to get a broader public perspective, the government also hosted an online public survey. It received over 300,000 responses from people across the country. The summary of the consultations was released in March as a “what we heard” report. Our government did its homework in the creation of this legislation.

I would like to take the time to explain to all hon. colleagues what Bill C-7 proposes to change in our MAID regime so that we all start from the same common understanding of the legislation before us.

There are four main aspects to the bill. The first aspect concerns eligibility criteria and these changes are fairly straightforward. The eligibility criterion requiring a reasonably foreseeable natural death would be repealed. As I have already described, this change would in effect adopt the outcome of the Truchon decision for the whole of Canada.

This eligibility criterion makes Canada's current end-of-life regime available only when a practitioner can determine with confidence that a temporal connection to death exists, with some flexibility. In Truchon, the Quebec Superior Court told us that this criterion violated the charter rights of people whose death was not reasonably foreseeable, people like Mr. Truchon and Ms. Gladu.

To avoid prolonging the suffering of the applicants and other Canadians in similar situations, our government decided to accept the decision and amend the act for all of Canada.

The legislation would continue to require a voluntary request and informed consent from a person with decision-making capacity. These cornerstones of autonomy would ensure that MAID could be safely provided to Canadians who deem it to be the solution to their suffering, while guarding against persons being pressured into seeking MAID. We trust that individuals know best for themselves when they can no longer endure suffering, regardless of whether their natural death is reasonably foreseeable. We are committed to respecting this very personal choice of Canadians.

The second aspect of the bill is the safeguards. The bill would use the criterion of reasonably foreseeable natural death to create a two-track system. Those whose death is reasonably foreseeable would continue to benefit from the current safeguards with two changes. First, the 10-day reflection period would be repealed and a person would only need one independent witness to sign a MAID request instead of two. That independent witness would be someone who is paid to provide health and personal care services to the person requesting MAID. These changes are intended to alleviate barriers to access and to reduce suffering.

We heard from medical practitioners that these did not serve as safeguards, but only unnecessarily prolonged suffering for individuals who had made up their mind. It also created issues of accessing MAID in rural and remote areas.

Those people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable would benefit from an enhanced set of safeguards. In addition to those safeguards required where death is reasonably foreseeable, practitioners would have to assess a person's MAID request over a minimum assessment period of 90 days. If neither of those two MAID assessors has expertise in the condition that is causing the person's suffering, they would have to consult a practitioner who does. That is pursuant to the amendment that was helpfully proposed by the NDP member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke at committee. The person requesting MAID must be informed of the means available to relieve their suffering, including mental health and disability support services, and be offered consultations with professionals who provide those services. Both practitioners have to discuss those means of relieving suffering with the person and be of the view that the person has seriously considered those means.

In terms of the broad approach to the bill, the third aspect of Bill C-7 is that of the limited change around advance consent. This one is unrelated to changes in eligibility criteria, but instead seeks to address an unfair situation that arises when a person is approved for MAID but loses decision-making capacity and cannot consent to the MAID procedure immediately before it would be provided, despite the request having been approved and the procedure already planned. Members probably know the reason for this amendment best through the story of Audrey Parker, the Canadian woman whose case we heard so much about a bit more than a year ago who had to schedule her MAID procedure earlier than she would have wanted, out of fear of losing decision-making capacity before her preferred date to receive MAID.

In my view, Bill C-7 takes the right approach by proposing to allow the waiver of final consent only in cases where the person's death is reasonably foreseeable and only when he or she has already been found eligible for medical assistance in dying and is waiting for the procedure to take place, but risks losing the capacity to provide final consent.

According to practitioners and people like Audrey Parker, this is exactly the kind of situation that forces people to make a cruel choice if they risk losing their capacity to give consent before receiving medical assistance in dying. That is the one, very specific scenario this bill proposes to address, since it presents the least amount of uncertainty in terms of patients' autonomous choices and the least ethical and practical complexity.

I know this is an important issue for Canadians, and I am committed to working with all parliamentarians to begin the parliamentary review of the medical assistance in dying regime as soon as possible after Bill C-7 has made its way through the parliamentary process. I have no doubt that the issue of advance requests will be an important part of that review.

The fourth and final category of amendments that the bill proposes targets the monitoring regime. The changes would allow the collection of information in a wider range of circumstances, including information about preliminary assessments that might be undertaken before a request is put in writing. Consultations will take place before these regulations are amended. An amendment at committee based on an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith of the Green Party would require that the Minister of Health consult with the minister responsible for the status of persons with disabilities in carrying out their reporting obligations; again, another helpful amendment that was proposed at the committee stage.

Medical assistance in dying has always been a very difficult issue that generates a variety of opinions on all sides of the issue. It strikes deeply to all Canadians' personal morals and sensibilities. We understand this. As such, it requires different interests to be considered. I firmly believe that Bill C-7 does exactly that. The law will continue to require informed consent and a voluntary request made by a person with decision-making capacity, while also creating a more robust set of safeguards where the person's natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. These safeguards require significant attention to be paid to all of the alternatives that might help alleviate suffering on the part of a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. We believe such a regime can work safely by guarding against overt and subtle pressures to seek MAID, while providing autonomy to a greater number of Canadians to make this important choice for themselves.

I would like to return for a moment to the topic of safeguards, specifically when it comes to those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It is very important to remind members of this House what these safeguards are and why we believe that they are adequate.

This legislation proposes a distinct set of procedural safeguards that are tailored to the risks associated with assistance in dying for persons whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. Ending the lives of those whose suffering is based on their experience of their quality of life is different from offering a peaceful death when the dying process would otherwise be painful or prolonged, or would erode a person's sense of their own dignity. Bill C-7 therefore proposes a more robust set of safeguards where natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. Safeguards for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable would be built around the existing safeguards, but contain enhancements over the previous Bill C-14, which was passed in the 42nd Parliament. Importantly, the medical assessments of a person's eligibility must span at least 90 days.

I mentioned this earlier, but I want to emphasize, as there appeared to be some confusion around this at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and elsewhere. This period of 90 days is not a waiting period or a reflection period. This is not a requirement that the person wait 90 days after they are approved. Rather, it is a stipulation that practitioners must, over at least a period of three full months, fully explore the person's medical condition and the nature and causes of their suffering, and work with them to identify reasonable treatment or other support options they must discuss with the person. The person seeking MAID is not required to undergo any treatments. It would be an intrusion into the individual's autonomy to force them into any sort of treatment, but as we embark on this new expansion of the MAID regime, we believe we can collectively move forward safely, if we can be satisfied that available options have been brought to the person's attention and given serious consideration.

All of these safeguards reflect the irreversible nature of ending someone's life and the very serious nature of medical assistance in dying, which needs to continue to be strictly regulated, especially given the broadening of the regime. As stated by the Canadian Medical Association, which welcomed our government's staged approach, the proposed MAID amendments are “a prudent step forward”. Bill C-7 proposes to further support individual autonomy while also protecting vulnerable persons and ensuring that careful consideration will be given to those challenging issues. For these reasons, among others, I strongly encourage members of this House to support this legislation and to support its passage through this House and Parliament to meet the court deadline of December 18.

I also want to remind members of the upcoming parliamentary review. Through the course of the consultations, and then through the committee process, we did hear of a number of issues that need to be reviewed and addressed, but need more thorough study than could be done in the time required to meet the court-imposed deadline. Parliament will have ample time to review all of these issues, and I think it is important that we do so, but we need to get this legislation passed as well.

Bill C-14, from the previous Parliament, called for Parliament to conduct a review and specifically mentions the state of palliative care. We expect this review will also include important issues such as mature minors, mental illness as the sole underlying condition and advance requests. By no means would I expect this to be a closed list, either. This is a broad issue and we would hope to hear from many Canadians on a wide variety of subjects relating to MAID. Having heard from many witnesses and spoken to many Canadians on Bill C-7, I know there are diverse views on this issue. They are all difficult issues, and I look forward to the parliamentary review and hearing from many more Canadians on the subject and seeing what the review has to say.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am very disappointed and concerned by my colleagues across the way and their lack of respect for the court deadline imposed on us by the Superior Court of Quebec to pass this legislation. I believe we have an obligation as parliamentarians to do everything we can to try to meet the deadline of the court. Canadians want this legislation. Quebeckers want this legislation. I am really unclear on why my colleagues across the way are showing disrespect for the will not only of the court, but of all Canadians. They have been slowing and delaying debate unnecessarily, and I am very concerned by what this says about how much they value the rule of law and the will of Canadians.

I want to thank my colleagues who serve with me on the justice committee for their work on helping us in a smooth and efficient committee process on this legislation. I look forward to this House giving the same consideration to the legislation. Again, I want to emphasize to my colleagues the importance of moving quickly. I look forward to continuing the debate on Bill C-7, but also to its ultimate passage in time for Parliament to meet the court-imposed obligation.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out that not one of the amendments that were proposed by our Conservative Party at committee was adopted. We proposed those amendments in good faith, and we proposed them with the support of the persons with disabilities community. Krista Carr, executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada, a group that represents persons with disabilities, said that Bill C-7 represents the “worst nightmare” for persons with disabilities.

I want to ask my hon. friend why they did not listen to the persons with disabilities community and why he is talking about delays, when it was his government that prorogued the House and caused Bill C-7 to have to have a complete restart.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his contributions in committee, and I will answer his questions.

The Conservative Party amendments that were proposed undercut the heart of what the bill is about, which is ensuring that there is a compassionate response to medical assistance in dying and that a person's autonomy is protected.

With respect to persons with disabilities, we had extensive consultations with persons with disabilities. We heard that there is heterogeneity among that community. We heard from Senator Petitclerc, who indicated the exact same thing. She and former minister Steven Fletcher of the Conservative Party, both themselves persons with disabilities, indicated that it is not for certain groups to speak on behalf of the entirety of persons with disabilities.

Madame Gladu and Monsieur Truchon were themselves persons with disabilities. The court found, in the Truchon case, that in order to protect their autonomy and their competence, the bill must be revised, which is why it is being revised to ensure that the competence of all people, including persons with disabilities, is respected.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit sad to hear this morning's debate. On one hand, some people are saying that the opposition parties are holding up the process, and there is in fact one opposition party that is purposely delaying it, which I think is shameful. On the other hand, other members are saying that the Liberals prorogued Parliament for five weeks for no reason other than to cover up a scandal. Both sides are right. I am letting them know that this morning.

I think that citizens expect more when we are debating legislation as important and fundamental as this, the law on medical assistance in dying. People who are suffering terribly have had to fight for many years in court. This bill seems reasonable to me, and I think it should be passed quickly.

Could my Liberal Party colleague reassure the Conservative members about the safeguards included in the bill to ensure that we can trust the professionals who are on the ground and who are able to judge the situations? We need to trust our own people.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, and I am pleased that the Bloc Québécois is supporting this bill.

With regard to the judgment of professionals on the ground, whether it be doctors or nurses, we know that they treat people and assess their autonomy and their informed consent. Bill C-7 gives these professionals more leeway to exercise their judgment.

What I mean by that is that in cases where death is not reasonably foreseeable, there is a waiting period of at least 90 days during which all aspects of the person's situation must be assessed. There has to be an opportunity to treat the person. All tools and options must be provided. As a result—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We will continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Parkdale—High Park for his speech today and for his diligent work on Bill C-7.

I want to return to this question of timing that we have been kicking around in the questions here today. I have to say that COVID was partially responsible for the delay, but certainly the Liberal government's prorogation was a bigger cause for the delay in dealing with the bill.

I would ask the hon. member to return to the question he touched on a moment ago, which is this: What are the consequences for Quebec and for the rest of the country if we do not meet this deadline in Quebec, because Bill C-7 does provide some safeguards to implement the court decision?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question and, again, I thank the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for his contributions at committee and throughout this Parliament.

The consequences of not meeting the court-imposed deadline of December 18, in effect, would be that rather than a statute being the law of the land in Quebec, we would have the Truchon decision being the law of the land in Quebec, which means that there would be no safeguards whatsoever for those persons who are not at the end of life, whose death is not reasonably foreseeable, from accessing MAID.

If all parliamentarians agree, all 338 of us, that some safeguards are required, notwithstanding the disputes about safeguards, I would urge Canadians, as represented by these parliamentarians, to work expeditiously to ensure that safeguards are in place for persons who are not at the end of life but seek to avail themselves of medical assistance in dying.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Official Languages)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

When it comes to the concept of reasonably foreseeable death, how do we now reconcile the Truchon ruling with the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Carter?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the parliamentary secretary for his very good question.

What we know is that in Truchon, the judge assessed the criteria in Carter and applied them to the situation of these two people who were living with disabilities but whose death was not reasonably foreseeable.

According to the judge, denying access to medical assistance in dying to persons in that situation was unconstitutional in that it constituted a violation of the rights guaranteed under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That is what prompted us to introduce legislation that responds to what we have heard from more than 300,000 people.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has pointed out that there are different opinions among people with disabilities and that is true in every community, of course. We both know that, for instance, in the Muslim community there are some people who express views about issues that the vast majority of that community find offensive. I think, generally speaking, government should listen to the representative organs of those communities, not cherry-pick one or two individuals it finds who may have a point of view that is not in keeping what the majority is saying. When all of the representative organizations who represent people with disabilities are raising big concerns, I think the government should take that seriously.

Just on the issue of timing, can the member acknowledge the fact that the Conservatives wanted the House to be able to sit in May and June. In addition to the issue of prorogation, the Liberal government chose not to allow the House to sit and consider legislation in May and June when it could have.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the member in a twofold manner.

The first point is that I think it is erroneous and misconstruing the positions at stake that we somehow, on this side of the House, are cherry-picking perspectives on any aspect of this bill. The consultations that we heard were vast and extensive from 125 experts and 300,000 individual Canadians. That is the first point. With respect to the views articulated by persons with disabilities, I would reiterate that the litigation that has prompted this legislative response was brought by persons with disabilities. Clearly persons with disabilities are seeking the same level of competence and autonomy that is available to able-bodied Canadians.

On the last point with respect to the timing, I am referring to what has transpired over the last four to six weeks, in terms of the committee process and now the House parliamentary process. Members are entitled to voice their views. Members are entitled to voice the views of their constituents. That is what a democracy is about. However, prolonging the suffering of Canadians is not in any of our interests and that is exactly what will transpire if the December 18 deadline is missed.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the parliamentary secretary for his speech and complimenting him on the quality of his efforts and his French.

Now, just because his French is good, it does not mean I agree with what he is saying, especially on the decisions his government has made.

We all know that this is a very sensitive topic and that there is no room for partisanship. As members of the House, every one of us here has to work diligently on this.

However, since this issue is literally about life or death, would it not have been better to have the Supreme Court of Canada as the court to rule definitively on this issue, to avoid any legal misunderstanding that might come up with this legislation?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the aisle for his question and his work in this Parliament and the previous one.

This question has been raised a number of times. A government's job is to analyze a well-articulated, well-researched, thorough decision. It is not necessary to appeal a decision all the way to the end.

There are times when the government must take the lead, evaluate a decision and seize the opportunity to spare Canadians pointless suffering and pain by introducing a legislative response to a decision. This is one of those times. We think this is the best way to go.

As a government, we made this decision to avoid appealing the case to the Supreme Court, which could have taken another two, three or four years and prolonged people's suffering.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this time to speak on this incredibly important issue to all Canadians.

As I was leading into this speech, I reflected back on the debates on Bill C-14. On May 3, 2016, the House was debating the creation of a euthanasia and assisted suicide bill. At the time I spoke in the evening on May 3, I mentioned how this would probably be, in my career as a politician, a member of Parliament, having at that time served eight years and now in my 13th year, perhaps the most important speech that I would ever make.

When I look back on that speech today, I think I was wrong. I think perhaps this is the more important speech because at that time Parliament was faced with a court deadline as well to put into place legislation for euthanasia and assisted suicide. Like many countries around the world that have these bills, going back to the first legislation in the Netherlands in 2002 until today, I have seen the progression of what has happened in these countries as an example of what will happen on the slippery slope of this legislation.

I should say as well, as I did in 2016, I come at this with a very biased approach and that is because I am the father of a 34-year-old intellectually disabled son. My son was brain damaged at age two. He suffered irreversible damage that has caused him to lead a life with his parents as his caregivers his entire life. When the people and organizations that represent persons with disabilities speak, and they have spoken loudly, to the particular changes and amendments that the government is bringing forward in Bill C-7, they have said this is the worst possible scenario.

I interpret that from my lens as a parent in terms of protection for my son. Frankly, it causes me to reflect on what we are currently experiencing: the COVID-19 crisis. Just about every piece of communication that I receive, email, text, telephone call, whatever, usually starts with a sentence where that person says to me or I say to them, “I hope your family is safe”. Generally speaking, the salutation at the end of those communications is, “Stay safe”. I believe all parliamentarians have probably experienced the exact same thing.

One of the concerns of the disability community is this. What will happen to our children in their latter lives when we are no longer with them, when we can no longer care for and protect them? Therefore, the theme of my speech today is “Stay safe, my son”.

Let us look at the evolution of these laws across the world. I will read a few recent headlines that I found through my research coming into this today. “'What kind of society do you want to live in?': Inside the country where Down syndrome is disappearing”. This headline is from the BBC on October 14, “Netherlands backs euthanasia for terminally ill children under-12”.

Let me read a couple of excerpts from this article, which are fairly poignant considering today's discussion. The article begins, “The Dutch government has approved plans to allow euthanasia for terminally ill children aged between one and 12." Of the current law, it goes on to mention, “It is also legal for babies up to a year old [to be euthanized] with parental consent.

I could go on with more headlines, but I choose not to because I think members get the point. The point is this: Where do we stop? With Bill C-14 in its original form, the preamble said it all, which was, and I am sure the committee heard this, that there are many in society who say this bill does not go far enough and does not satisfy those who want wide open death-upon-request euthanasia laws. When we look at this, we must look at it from both sides, because both sides of this issue require our compassion.

I have spent time with three significant people in my life at the end of their lives. One is my mother, who was in extreme pain for a long period of time. I held her hand upon her death. I also watched a very good friend deteriorate from age 39 to age 41 before his death. As well, lately, a very good friend, who is choosing to end her life early, and who I had quite a frank conversation with out of total respect. All of them had been, or are in, the final stages of a terminal illness.

Compassion must go to people who are in situations that are unbearable. Fortunately, there are other alternatives. I happen to live in Brantford, Ontario, and we have one of the finest palliative care units in all of the country. People come to study it and look at it. They come to see it as an alternative. If we were to focus on something going forward that a government could do, but that it would perhaps not see as a priority, it could be to give people the resources to make a choice.

Let me get back to this discussion of the most vulnerable. They are persons with disabilities, and to name a few, they are autistic children, autistic adults and persons with brain damage, like my son. These are not mental illnesses, by the way. Some of these are genetic, such as Down Syndrome. There are some who have met a person with Down Syndrome who just lights up their life because of their complete innocence and their complete love, not only for others, but also for their own lives. There are many others who the disability community speaks for.

Bill C-7 undermines their precarious position. It takes and diminishes the few protections that existed in Bill C-14, and of course, this is what is being chosen, as per the votes up to this point, on this issue by the majority of members of Parliament.

To my son, I say, “Stay safe.” To the constituents of Charlottetown, I say, “Stay safe.” To the constituents with disabilities in Scarborough—Agincourt, I say, “Stay safe.” To all Canadians, I say, “Stay safe.”

The trajectory of where we are heading, and it is in that preamble to the legislation, is what is happening around the world. It is happening in society. People in legislatures are making the decisions for the rest of the country as to what the future will look like.

This is a critical moment. It was a critical moment back in 2016. Again, we are faced with a critical moment. The priority has become a deadline set by a court, instead of the fullness of all voices being heard.

The parliamentary secretary can articulate the numbers. He can articulate the fact that there were so many submissions and individuals we were able to listen to. At this point in time, the people who represent the vast number of persons with disabilities and their families in this country are dead against this legislation. Let us be clear about that. Let us not try to sugar-coat this. This is where we are today.

What kind of society do we want? Where this leads to, frankly, is one of those headlines. As we take away the protections for individuals with disabilities, as this law does, we eventually lead society into the normal course of accepting that assisted suicide and euthanasia are natural things. We move toward being a society that starts to look at individuals as either being healthy in society's mind, and living fulfilling lives, or beings one of those who have been brought into this world, or has had something happen to them in this world, that puts them in this very precarious situation.

Is life easy for persons with disabilities and their caregivers? In most cases, it is not easy. We can attest to that. We have three healthy children, as well as our special needs son with disabilities. Part of the richness of life is the fact that the child who many would see as imperfect is the one who brings the most joy to life. They are the ones we must protect at all costs.

Why do we not spend the time to get this legislation right and make it airtight so their lives are never at risk? I do not believe this legislation does immediately put them at risk. Some would say this legislation is quite to the contrary, but looking to five, 10, or 20 years from now, when most of us here will no longer be in Parliament, it will be a new group of elected representatives looking to make changes down the road.

Is there anything in the international experience to tell us that this is not a continual, gradual and incremental deterioration of the protections for those who are the most vulnerable?

The other point that needs to be made is that persons with disabilities are a minority in our country. Over the 13 years I have been in Parliament, more time has been spent on legislation, members' statements, just name it, than communications from government about protecting minorities. This is a vulnerable, if not the most vulnerable, minority in society. It is definitely in the top grouping of the most vulnerable.

Disability knows no boundaries. We are involved with groups of people, and I represent the Six Nations of the Grand River, the largest first nation in Canada. We are helping aboriginal individuals from Six Nations who have children with disabilities. They feel very strongly about the fact that the few protections that exist need to not only be kept in place, but also enhanced and made airtight for their children.

In those debates in 2016, the member for Calgary Nose Hill said in her opening statement that this is about, “the sanctity of human life” and “defining the morality of our country.” I could not agree more wholeheartedly with those words.

I will finish my remarks by saying, “Stay safe, my son.”

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Official Languages)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our friend from Brantford—Brant for sharing his own experience.

I was one of the original members of the joint committee behind Bill C-14. Allow me to share a little background.

Bill C-14 was introduced in response to the unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada handed down in February 2014, when the Harper government was in power. The court gave the government 12 months to comply with the ruling. The Harper government, knowing that an election was coming in the spring of 2015, essentially did nothing. The Liberals won the 2015 election. We lost 10 precious months before cabinet was appointed as a result of the Conservative Party's inaction.

Politicians are often called upon to make decisions, and it is not always easy. The majority of members on our committee who opposed this bill said they were doing so to protect vulnerable people, which is something everyone wants to do.

Could my esteemed colleague tell us where in Bill C-14 or in Bill C-7, which we are debating today, it says that a minor with a head injury, cerebral palsy or Down's syndrome could request medical assistance in dying? I do not see that anywhere.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reflect back on a few comments made previously in debate by the parliamentary secretary, and in the question and answer period, which were that this is not a partisan issue. However, the only two people I have heard criticize a particular political party in this debate are the two members from the Liberal government side.

The member said the protections for persons with disabilities are in this legislation. He is wrong. That is why the disability community has spoken so loudly and broadly across this country, yet the government is not listening.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Brantford—Brant for his speech today. He is a member for whom I have a great deal of respect.

One of the things that COVID and the debate on Bill C-7 have done is expose something that has been there for anyone to look at if they chose to. That is the way we treat people with disabilities. We have not organized our society in a way that allows people with disabilities to live to their fullest potential or to live in equality with the rest of Canadians.

Would the hon. member support a national program of income support for people with disabilities that would lift all people with disabilities out of poverty and take away those stark choices he has been talking about?

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a great deal of respect for the member who is asking this question. It is a great question.

There are supports needed for all families and for support workers, as well as for individuals with disabilities who choose to live on their own. In many of the provinces, believe it or not, they are sufficient.

I totally agree with the member. We need to set, for society, a moral compass on this issue. The government cannot look at this Parliament as solving this problem. We must set a tone and a future that guarantees, airtight, that persons with disabilities will live fulfilling lives, and that we will treat them as they are: as one of the most vulnerable minorities in our society.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for illuminating, from the heart, what we have been talking about in this debate.

I know he mentioned that his riding has excellent palliative care, but the reality is that across Canada, 70% of people have no access to palliative care. The government unanimously supported my palliative care bill to put a framework in place to get consistent access. Now it has backed down on all its promises to put money behind it so that people would actually have a choice, as the Carter decision outlined.

Could the member describe how he sees the government's response on palliative care?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, first of all, for her work on this issue, and for her passion for those I know she has personally worked with as the member of Parliament for Sarnia—Lambton.

I wish I could bring all of Parliament to the palliative care facility in my community. It is, without question, one of the most brilliant and well-thought-out places in which a person can choose a path to the end of life with dignity, and can have family and the community participate. I have spent many hours at this facility as a member of Parliament, visiting members of my community who are in their last days. It is one of the most rewarding and wonderful experiences of life.

Death is part of life, and should be celebrated as someone comes toward the end. They may be in great pain—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Fredericton.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the member to continue his response here, if he wishes. I appreciate the personal contributions so much. It is so important for us to understand.

I was not here for the previous discussion around this bill, and here we are in a very difficult position again. I have studied it. I have consulted with my riding. I have consulted with many people who are accessing MAID, and with people in the disability community who have concerns.

I was very comfortable with where I landed in support of this bill. However, I come from a position of privilege. I want the member to be comfortable as a parent, and I want the member's son to be safe as well.

Is it the interpretation that the member is worried about: that people will see people with disabilities as experiencing suffering? The bill is focusing on someone who is in pain. I am just wondering, is the interpretation and the application of law for those in the disability community the concern? I just need to understand where the fears are really coming from.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that very personal question.

The fear comes from this. Parents and caregivers, and the community in general around persons with disabilities, know that there will come a time in their lives when that care may deteriorate, and society no longer values persons it interprets as being imperfect. If we look at the trajectory of euthanasia and assisted-suicide legislation around the world, that is indeed the direction it is going.

It is going in the direction of this. It may not be now, through this piece of legislation. Perhaps there may be good intent, and I hope there is, but eventually, we as legislators must decide there are lines we cannot cross. That is why I say, “Stay safe, my son,” because I will no longer be here to keep him safe, and that is the fear of most parents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I come at it from the very same position as my hon. colleague from Brantford—Brant. I am choking up. I know both sides of it. Right next door to me, my father-in-law is in palliative care. We have been looking after him for six months. I also have a 32-year-old daughter who lives with a cognitive disability, and we worry every day. We worry every day that they go outside. We worry every day, when I go to work, that somehow someone is going to take advantage of them, and that we will not be there to protect them.

I wonder if I could get my hon. colleague to expand a bit on the fear that parents have and the fact that we are not always there. There will come a day when we are not there, so we have to do everything in our power. I said in the last session that Bill C-14 was perhaps the most important piece of legislation in our lifetime and our generation, but as a parent of somebody with a disability this is so important.

I ask my colleague to expand a bit more on the fear that we have for our children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would elaborate more if I had the time, and I will personally elaborate more with my colleague.

However, we must come to grips with this. Society is not well equipped for this, frankly. The legislature is not equipped. We, as legislators, are not well equipped to set a course that protects the most vulnerable. I agree with protecting minorities. This applies to the most vulnerable. This bill, Bill C-7, would take away protections. That is why the disability community has spoken out.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your time and indulgence.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the third time and passed.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the last stage of debate before Bill C-7 is passed.

I would like to remind members of the first thing I said when we began the clause-by-clause study of the bill. I said that we must not forget that while we are debating, people are suffering and are waiting for the results of our efforts. Today, I would say that they want to know whether we will take care of them and listen to their voices, or whether they will once again have to bear the burden of going before the courts to have their final wishes heard.

I also said that I was certain, from the start of the debate on Bill C-7, that all parliamentarians in the House were caring and compassionate, but that we could not be caring and compassionate if we infringed on the autonomy of a person who is dying or suffering and has reached their breaking point.

I have to say that I am disappointed by the Conservatives' attitude. It is one thing to want to make a point, but it is another to engage in what amounts to filibustering. However, what bothers me even more is that they seem to be claiming that they know better than the person who is dying what is best for them. I cannot make such a claim. I prefer to give the person the choice, and my role as a legislator is to preserve that choice.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are practising government-imposed moral paternalism, which is odd because they are economic libertarians. That means they want less government intervention in the economy, yet they also want full government intervention in a matter as intimate as our own death.

The Conservatives are practising government paternalism, but they are not alone, because we have heard some practitioners say and demonstrate that in 2020, they still apply a medical paternalism that I would describe as appalling. Why on earth are these omniscient practitioners doing that? How are they better equipped than a person who is dying or a suffering patient who has reached their threshold of tolerance to know what is best for them? Only God knows, but they do not mention that.

Those few medical practitioners continue to frustrate us to this day because they practise in Quebec. Five years after Quebec's Act Respecting End-of-Life Care was passed, they consider palliative care and medical assistance in dying to be mutually exclusive, when they are and should be complementary, since medical assistance in dying is part of the care continuum under Quebec's end-of-life care legislation. However, that is still not enough. They believe that the patient must change their mind if they request medical assistance in dying, and they say they manage to make them change their minds. They have no qualms about saying that they would not want to refer the request for medical assistance in dying to a doctor who can perform the procedure, even though that is enshrined in Quebec law. They say they are obviously doing it for the good of the patient, even though they refuse to listen to the patient and heed their wishes.

That is the testimony that provides the basis for the Conservatives' filibustering. They claim to know better than the dying patient what is best for them. That is not caring. That is a violation of the principle of self-determination.

I will let the 88% of Quebeckers who support the freedom to choose medical assistance in dying judge the Conservative Party's position and attitude. However, what I heard in committee worries me, because five years after Quebec adopted its end-of-life care legislation, some institutions can and do circumvent the law, as was the case before the Morgentaler decision, to hinder someone from receiving medical assistance in dying. I was shocked to hear that.

If a patient is no longer receiving aggressive treatment and has finally been given the right to die, which is known as palliative care, I hope that this patient will not be subjected to aggressive palliative care.

Dying with dignity implies respect for human dignity. It is not an intellectual conceit; it is intrinsic. Treating people as ends in themselves and not as mere means involves respecting a person's capacity for self-determination, free will and freedom to choose. A person must never be subjected to an analysis or an ideology, religious or otherwise. A person is the master of their own destiny.

Furthermore, self-determination is enshrined in law. No one can undermine our intellectual or bodily integrity or our self-determination without our free and informed consent, even in an emergency.

That means that when a sick patient is at their most vulnerable, when they are suffering and dying and have reached the point where they can bear no more, the person at their bedside must not impose their own ideology on that person, be it religious or otherwise.

That is why they say in clinical ethics that the patient comes first. The patient's wishes, which are based on how much they are suffering, need to be heard. Palliative care providers should not see medical assistance in dying as a failure. If a palliative care patient, who is irreversibly committed to dying, wakes up one morning completely at peace and ready to let go, then the palliative care provider should not see that patient's request for medical assistance in dying as a failure.

I have said it before and I will say it again: I hope that, when they are on the threshold of death, all my parliamentary colleagues will be able to feel that peace and let go with a clear conscience. That is the best we can hope for for any human being.

Bill C-7 responds to the Gladu-Truchon ruling. The courts determined the appropriate response by examining the limits of the government's power to intervene in end-of-life decisions in Carter and Gladu-Truchon. The courts told us that the provisions of the Criminal Code infringed on the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

They infringe on the right to life—that says a lot—because they cause people who are suffering to shorten their lives through suicide, which is decriminalized in Canada, rather than waiting for the moment when their threshold of tolerance is reached. This is significant.

During the committee deliberations, I heard people say that 90 days is not long enough. In saying that, they were assuming that someone who has a degenerative disease of any sort might wake up one morning and suddenly decide they want medical assistance in dying, without having ever discussed it with their doctor or health care professionals throughout their care process. It is as though they thought this all came out of a Cracker Jack box one morning and the person was wondering whether they could access medical assistance in dying that very moment or whether 90 days was enough time to be sure of that decision. That is not how it happens in real life.

The right to life is not something to be cast aside lightly. People want to live as long as possible. People want to live, and when they receive a diagnosis and are in a suicidal state, they can be treated to reverse that state. When someone finds out that they have cancer they are not going to tell their doctor that they want medical assistance in dying. They are going to ask what can be done to help and when their treatment will begin. Sometimes it takes 15 or 20 years, and other times the cancer is more aggressive, but there comes a point when the doctor announces that all treatments have been exhausted and it is time to begin the palliative stage. In any case, this does not happen overnight.

If someone who receives such a diagnosis tells their doctor they want medical assistance in dying, the doctor will prescribe anti-depressants and tell the patient that they will take care of them. They will tell the patient to get their affairs in order and talk to the family. They are not going to provide medical assistance in dying. That is not how it works. Sometimes in committee I would hear people describe catastrophic scenarios out of some sort of house of horrors, as if that were how things happened.

Bill C-7 is based on principles the Bloc Québécois believes in. Who can dispute the fact that death is the most intimate moment in a human being's life? Neither the state nor my neighbour will die in my place. The decision can only be made by the person requesting it, not by the family or anyone else.

The criteria must of course be met. We in the Bloc Québécois have confidence in our health workers. We have confidence in our health professionals. There is something that I find rather perplexing. Just this Tuesday, the Conservatives supported our motion that commended the work, dedication, care and concern of health workers and health professionals. However, when it comes to the most intimate decision a human being can make, to decide one's own death and not to suffer, and when it comes to respecting a person's right to self-determination, the Conservatives no longer have confidence in them. They believe that there are people who may have bad intentions.

If there are people who are not well intentioned or caring in the health system, let us show them the door right away. I would also say that if there are any health professionals who claim to know better than the patient who is at the end of the process and who has made the choice that is right for them, it is time they reflected or took a course on respect for human dignity.

Throughout this debate, I have gotten the sense that some people are against freedom of choice. When people support freedom of choice, that does not mean they want to get rid of palliative care and go around signing all kinds of people up for MAID. What we are saying is that an individual who wants to die at the end of the process should be able to do so. MAID should apply to people whose suffering is intolerable and cannot be alleviated.

Yes, Bill C-7 leaves a number of things unresolved. There are two main elements here. One major improvement is that Bill C-7 tossed out the reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion, which is not a medically valid criterion. That is understandable. However, it was retained for use in defining two safeguards. I would have liked to see a more specific definition of “reasonably foreseeable death”.

For terminally ill people, there is a safeguard of up to 10 days, and a second consent may not be necessary. In cases like Ms. Gladu's, Mr. Truchon's and Ms. Carter's, where death is not reasonably foreseeable, it is supposed to be 90 days. I would have liked some clarification on this criterion because doctors need things to be clear and specific. I do not know why this criterion was brought back. There is always room for improvement.

The bill removes the need for second consent to put an end to people's suffering when palliative care no longer eases their pain, when death is irreversible and the process has already begun. That seems like a good thing to me.

Bill C-7 obviously excludes mental illness as an eligible reason when it is the sole underlying medical condition. It also does not cover all of the issues associated with advance requests, particularly in the case of neurodegenerative diseases, or the issue of mature minors.

Under Bill C-14, a parliamentary committee was to examine those provisions and the matter of palliative care last summer. Today, the Bloc Québécois is calling for that review to begin as soon as possible, not in five years or even one year, because there are people who are suffering. What is more, this time, we must not make them bear the burden of having to go to court to be heard. Who is more vulnerable than a person who is enduring unbearable pain, who has reached or is about to reach the limit of what they can endure and who has to decide to go before the courts to make their voice heard?

It is time for us as legislators to take up the torch, show some leadership and do our job. The courts can issue orders for us to do something, but obviously when they do there is a fixed timeline. Right now, we have a deadline to meet, December 18. I really hope that we can pass this bill and begin the review process so that we can deal with the sensitive issues that are not addressed by Bill C-7.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The parliamentary secretary to the government leader on a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your election.

I have a question for the member who spoke, with respect to autonomy. He spoke a great deal about autonomy in his speech.

I am fairly sure that if I, as an able-bodied young person, were to present at an emergency department in the midst of some personal crisis, experiencing suicidal ideation, I would receive suicide prevention: I would be given messages and told that my life was worth living, that I could get through whatever challenges I was experiencing, and so forth.

On the other hand, we have heard at committee that people with disabilities report going to the health care system and, without even having brought it up, having MAID or euthanasia suggested to them. It is pushed on them, and they are told they are being selfish if they choose not to go down that road.

I would put to the member that it is not so much a question of autonomy that people in disability communities are concerned about. It is about a social determination that some people's lives are worth living and some people's lives are not, and that some people are eligible for suicide prevention whereas other people are not.

I would ask the member to consider that fact: the architecture of choice, the different ways in which choices are being presented to different groups of people, how that constitutes discrimination and how all of the disability rights groups that came to committee raised that specific concern with respect to this bill.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem I have with my colleague's question is that he wants to address the issue of discrimination on the basis of disability within a piece of legislation, the Criminal Code, which simply aims to provide access to freedom of choice when it comes to end-of-life care.

I support fighting discrimination on the basis of disability, especially given that, as he said himself, disability, whether mental or physical, should not lead to social disability. It is society that puts certain people at a disadvantage based on disabilities. I strongly oppose that.

On the issue of groups feeling more vulnerable, I would remind him that Mr. Arvay, who was Ms. Carter's lawyer, who won in the Supreme Court decision, was in a wheelchair. When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Health, I very clearly recall him asking us if we thought he was losing his autonomy. The autonomy I am talking about here is not physical, social or psychological autonomy, although if you have a cognitive problem, you have less oral autonomy. The autonomy I am talking about here is moral autonomy. A person, whether in a wheelchair or not, is capable of making his or her own decisions, and I am convinced that he or she is capable of being heard.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am an MP, but I am also a social worker and I belong to a professional association, so I am an active professional.

Not long ago, I worked in a long-term care facility and in homes, where I supported people who had made that informed choice and were supported. Under Quebec law, social workers play a crucial, key role in supporting people who have chosen MAID.

I know first-hand that it is a very rigorous and demanding process, and not everyone who applies gets approved. I witnessed a situation in which a woman applied and was unfortunately denied because the professionals in her case found that she was not yet capable of making that decision.

This issue is so important to my colleague. Can he tell me the underlying reason why so many Conservative MPs are resisting Bill C-7 or rejecting it outright?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I could have answered in jest that they should ask them the question, but we have heard from them at length already.

I think it is about attitude. On the one hand, I heard that they did not have confidence in the care process. On the other, they repeatedly refer to certain circumstances where there were alleged abuses. I would just say that it is an abuse to try to convince someone to do something they do not want to do. Whether we are talking about palliative care or medical assistance in dying, it is not up to the health professional to convince the person to take a certain course of action. It is up to them whether to receive palliative care or not, or whether to request medical assistance in dying while they are receiving palliative care. That is what I wish for. I want palliative care to be the minimum support provided to the individual. It is possible that this person will not request medical assistance in dying or that they will change their mind, but it is also possible that they make the request even if they did not do so before, and we must listen to them.

I believe that there are people here with a different ideology, which may or may not be religious, and who want to apply it to the dying person. That is unacceptable, because we have the fundamental right to self-determination throughout our life. This self-determination is enshrined in law. Why would we then take that away in the most intimate moment of our life, the moment of our death?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the hon. member for Montcalm for his important contributions to the work on the bill in the justice committee. I also want to thank him for a very thoughtful speech and very thoughtful answers to questions today in the House.

I want to ask the member about something I was disturbed to hear. It was some members, and I will say bluntly from the Conservative caucus, saying that this is an artificial timeline and that there was no need to pay attention to this deadline set by a court in Quebec, because it was only a court in Quebec and failing to meet the deadline would only affect Quebec. I was, of course, very unhappy to hear this kind of sentiment expressed, in its disdain for Quebec, its disdain for one of our courts and its disdain for the protections that would be provided in Bill C-7 to those on the second track of medical assistance in dying.

Does the member share those concerns?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words.

I would like to say to him that I appreciate his important contribution to the debate. I agree with him, unfortunately. I cannot not agree with him. Every time I heard that argument in committee, I had to make a point to stay calm.

Justice Baudouin's decision is based on the Carter decision. People are suffering and the government decided to turn to us as legislators to respond to the ruling instead of going to the Supreme Court.

Let's imagine the process: We go to the Supreme Court, where we are faced with the evidence and asked to start our work again from square one because we are infringing on the right to life of people who are suffering at the end of life.

It was a wise choice to entrust the work of complying with the Baudouin decision to the legislators. I hope we will quickly start the review process of the legislation to deal with other essential issues because Bill C-7 is inadequate.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice to this debate today. In my previous work, I was a social worker. I have medical hospital experience, and I worked with a lot of patients at end of life.

I wonder if the member would agree that it is appalling that only 30% of Canadians have access to palliative care. Would he agree that, before we even offer MAID, palliative care must be offered as an option?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is appalling that, for 50 years, advocates of palliative care have maintained that it was the solution for dying with dignity, but we have not done anything more to provide access to it.

However, I am not in favour of offering palliative care to the person who is dying before giving him the free choice. Palliative care is not the only solution and sometimes causes intolerable suffering. I know all about it because a person I loved very much experienced that.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are few, if any, issues that have come before Parliament that more clearly touch on our fundamental values as Canadians than medical assistance in dying.

Let me start today by restating what I said at the beginning of my speech in favour of Bill C-7 at second reading. When it comes to medical assistance in dying, the priority for New Democrats has always been, and remains, avoiding unnecessary suffering being inflicted on those who are already afflicted with terminal illnesses, and at the same time also avoiding prolonging suffering for the families who must bear witness to the suffering of their loved ones.

Here we are in late December, up against the deadline set by the Superior Court of Québec in the Truchon case. It does not really matter whose fault that is. Some of this delay was obviously due to COVID, but a good measure of the delay was due to the Liberals proroguing Parliament.

To me, it is manifestly unacceptable to hear some members arguing that we do not have to meet the deadline because it would “only affect Quebec.” In any case, the time has come for the House to act on Bill C-7. It is also time to act on another task as well. Not only has our consideration of the bill been delayed, but equally important, the five-year statutory review of the original medical assistance in dying legislation, Bill C-14, is now long overdue.

Members will know that some of us called on the government to get this review under way much earlier this year, so that it could have helped guide the consideration of Bill C-7. Again, COVID and prorogation intervened.

When it comes to medical assistance in dying, Parliament had two tasks before us. One was the need to amend the MAID legislation to conform with the charter as required by the Superior Court of Québec ruling. This ruling found the current law too restrictive, and that was in fact the very reason New Democrats voted against Bill C-14 at the original vote.

Making MAID laws conform to this ruling is, of course, the central purpose of Bill C-7. However, as I said, the second task with regard to medical assistance in dying was to conduct that statutory review of the broader issues, having had four years of experience with it.

As a result of growing increasingly concerned while waiting for the government to get the review under way, on October 8, I introduced Motion No. 51. My motion called for the creation of a special committee of the House of Commons to conduct this review. Special committees have some advantages when it comes to reviews of this kind. They are granted comparatively unlimited resources by the House and are not bound by the four hours per week schedule specified for standing committees, like the justice committee.

They are mandated to work on a single task, so they are not subject to the kinds of delays that can occur in standing committees, like the justice committee, where dealing with legislation must always, necessarily, take precedence over studies. Of course, special committees can make recommendations for actions needed beyond the confines of Bill C-7 or beyond the narrow court decisions.

Indeed, it was a special committee that made the original recommendations to the House that became Bill C-14. To be clear, this broader legislative review of issues arising out of medical assistance in dying was mandated in the original legislation and was supposed to start last June at the latest. It should have taken place, and would have taken place, whether or not there was a court decision in Quebec.

Bill C-14 required that the review specifically look at the question of advance requests or advance directives, requests from mature minors and requests where mental illness is the sole underlying condition. However, New Democrats have argued from the beginning that the mandate of that statutory review was missing a key element. That is why my motion called for a special committee with an expanded mandate to include the question of whether the safeguards in our medical assistance in dying legislation are adequate to protect the most vulnerable among us.

I am happy to say that I believe all parties now seem to agree that the mandate should be expanded to include this question. I am still not sure why the government is so averse to a special committee, but I think it will find that members of the justice committee would reluctantly agree to the justice committee undertaking this review, as long as it had the expanded mandate. Though, of course, I will still worry that time, resources and the agenda of the standing committee may be too limited to do justice to the task.

Previously I have spoken about the issues of medical assistance in dying on very personal and very practical terms. I have spoken about my mother's fears of being trapped in a hospital bed while suffering and no longer knowing her family. I have spoken of a friend who chose medical assistance in dying much earlier than she might otherwise have done out of fear of losing her capacity to give final consent because of her growing brain tumour.

Now, in addition to these personal experiences, as a member of the justice committee I have had the privilege of talking to dozens of Canadians over Zoom, of hearing dozens of witnesses in committee and of reading even more briefs on medical assistance in dying.

I have been particularly and equally touched by the stories of families whose loved ones chose medical assistance in dying over prolonged suffering and the stories from those medical practitioners who provide that medical assistance in dying. My conversations with these families and with these doctors helped me understand how medical assistance in dying operates in real life. These conversations have made it clear to me that the current legislation has some unintended and cruel consequences. This was evident even before the Quebec court ruling.

Those who listened carefully to the terminally ill, their families and the practitioners providing medical assistance knew well that our current law often inflicts and prolongs unnecessary suffering. Bill C-7 addresses three of those cases of unnecessary and prolonged suffering. While it was not strictly required to do so by the Truchon decision, I rightly think the bill does take on that task of reducing suffering.

Most important to me, Bill C-7 will end the spectre of patients like Audrey Parker of Nova Scotia, who felt she had to leave early and choose an earlier date for receiving medical assistance in dying because of her fear of losing the competence required to give consent at the moment the assistance is rendered. Audrey Parker felt she had no choice but to miss one last Christmas with her family. I think we all owe her thanks for making her personal struggle public so that others would not have to face the same awful choice.

Bill C-7 will fix this by waiving the requirement for final consent for those already assessed and approved for medical assistance in dying. This waiver of final consent takes away that need for any person, and let me stress this again, who has already decided to request medical assistance in dying and has already been assessed and approved for that assistance. It will prevent them from having to go early in order to avoid the loss of competence that would prevent them from receiving the end to their suffering and the end to their family's suffering that they desire.

Whether one supports waiving the requirement of consent at the moment assisted dying is provided or does not support that, Bill C-7 does not open the door wide to advance consent or advance directive. It is simply providing that waiver of final consent for those already assessed and approved. The topic of advance requests remains part of the mandate of the special committee I would like to see doing the statutory review.

This is a question of great concern to many of my constituents. In fact, it is the single thing I have heard the most about from my constituents. They are concerned about maintaining their autonomy and decision-making over how their end of life takes place. They want to make sure that their wishes are respected. I have to say that my discussions with practitioners providing medical assistance in dying have persuaded me that this question is not so simple as it appears on first look. As I have said, this will remain an important question for a statutory review to address, but it is not part of Bill C-7.

A second cause of unnecessary suffering that Bill C-7 will also eliminate is the mandatory 10-day waiting or, as it is sometimes called, reflection period. The evidence provided in the report of the Association of Medical Assistance in Dying Assessors and Providers shows that nearly half the patients receiving medical assistance in dying chose to do so on or about the 11th day. What does that tell us? It tells us that their suffering was prolonged simply to meet that statutory waiting period of 10 days.

I know concerns have been raised by members of Parliament about people changing their minds, but the statistics on people changing their minds about medical assistance in dying show that people do that during the assessment period, before they are actually approved. What the waiting period does is it makes patients hold out for days longer on what has already been assessed as intolerable suffering just to meet the statutory requirements. All patients are made to spend this time suffering and few if any are actually reflecting on the situation, because at this point to relieve the pain they are heavily sedated. If we truly respect the agency of patients who are terminal and suffering, then we ought not to impose a cruel waiting period.

Let me say as an aside how disappointed I have been to hear some members of Parliament alleging that Bill C-7 somehow creates the possibility of what they call “same-day dying”. It does nothing of the kind.

That would only be possible if the medical professionals involved skipped their duties and their professional responsibilities as prescribed in law and in their own professional codes of conduct. That is what it would take to produce such a result. Making this false allegation is insulting to the patients and the medical practitioners who provide this service. It demonstrates how little those who use that term know about the actual process of medical assistance in dying.

Another misleading “fact” that has often been cited in this debate occurs when members ask how can anyone support Bill C-7 when “doctors oppose it”. What those members are referring to is a petition submitted to the justice committee, a petition signed by more than 700 physicians. What this selective siding ignores is that the Canadian Medical Association, which represents more than 70,000 doctors, has come out squarely in favour of Bill C-7. That is nearly 100 times as many doctors as those who signed the petition.

Let me point to another positive change in Bill C-7 that reduces suffering, which has been willfully misconstrued: the reduction of the requirement that two independent people witness the signature of the patient requesting medical assistance in dying.

This change was suggested by practitioners as a result of the experience they have already had with Bill C-14. Clinicians and families often found the process of identifying a second independent witness was difficult, especially in rural and remote areas, because of the requirement of independence. It often also raised privacy concerns, as it involved an extra person in this process.

We must remember that the purpose of witnesses is only to verify the identity of the person making the request. Two independent medical assessors have already been involved each and every step of the way throughout the process. They have already had to certify the patient's eligibility for MAID. Practitioners have said this second witness provision is unduly restrictive and, again, often only ends up unnecessarily prolonging suffering.

At this point, I want to turn to some of the specific concerns about Bill C-7 that were raised at the justice committee.

The first concern is about the removal of the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable in order for someone to proceed with medical assistance in dying. Of course, this provision was removed by the Quebec court decision, not by Bill C-7.

Bill C-7 makes sure that medical assistance in dying legislation conforms with the decision of the court. It said limiting medical assistance in dying to cases where death was imminent was a violation of the Charter rights of patients whose death might not be on the immediate horizon but whose condition left them in intolerable suffering.

Bill C-7 creates a second track for those whose death is not imminent and specifies a second set of requirements and safeguards appropriate for the second track. The decision about whether the reasonably foreseeable provision should be removed is not made by Bill C-7. It is a decision made by the Quebec courts. I believe this is consistent with the Carter decision.

I want to take a moment to address those who say there is no need to meet the deadline opposed by the Quebec Superior Court. I remind them that without Bill C-7, those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable will come under the existing requirements immediately and will be without any of the conditions specified in Bill C-7 as appropriate for the second track. Regardless of whether people believe the safeguards are adequate, I ask them to understand that if we do not meet the deadline, there are no safeguards in the second track at all.

I believe most of us accept that there are good reasons to differentiate between the two tracks and to have additional requirements appropriate for those whose death is not imminent. Bill C-7 rightly sets out a more restrictive process and therefore requires more time for assessment and decision-making for the second track.

In addition, it does not set a reflection period of 90 days. It sets an assessment period of 90 days. That is an important distinction. It is not a maximum of 90 days; it is a minimum of 90 days. I do not think we should get confused on that point.

The second concern I want to address is a very important concern of the disability advocates: with the removal of the requirement that death be imminent, there will be pressure on the vulnerable in our society to choose medical assistance in dying.

Nothing in Bill C-7 changes the very high standards set in the original Bill C-14 for receiving medical assistance in dying. To receive this assistance, patients must have a condition that is incurable, must be in an advanced state of irreversible decline and must face intolerable suffering. This means Bill C-7 does not open the door wide, as some have suggested.

However, let me be clear here. I do not, in any way, wish to dismiss the concerns of the disability community over their vulnerability. That is why I have been calling for an expanded mandate of the statutory review so that we require it to consider the question of whether safeguards to protect the vulnerable in our medical assistance in dying legislation are adequate. Again, this may require us to look beyond the narrow confines of the medical assistance in dying legislation to other health legislation and other social support legislation.

That is why my colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, and I have just delivered today a joint letter to the Minister of Disability Inclusion calling for a new national income support program, set at $2,200 per month, for all persons with disabilities. This would be a single, national program to replace the patchwork of provincial programs that rarely come close to the amount that we have all now acknowledged with CERB as the minimum necessary. Providing such a benefit would be an important step toward a guaranteed basic income for all Canadians. More importantly, in the context of the bill, this would provide support at a level that would help avoid placing persons with disabilities in a position where dying looks like a better option than living without the supports they need.

Failure to provide the necessary resources to ensure that everyone can enjoy full and equal participation in life is a long-standing and ongoing black mark on the federal Parliament and all provincial parliaments. We have only to look at the failure to deliver additional assistance promptly to persons with disabilities during this pandemic to remind ourselves how often we forget about those living with disabilities.

As we consider how to recover from the pandemic, I hope we can adopt this proposed federal program that would provide all people with disabilities the equivalent of a living wage. This would be an important step toward relieving the fears about having to make a terrible choice eventually with medical assistance in dying.

Given the speeches from all parties stressing the need to take the situation of people with disabilities seriously, and in light of the Quebec Superior Court decision, I believe we should be able to marshal immediate support for this proposal in a minority Parliament. It would be an important step in mending the gaps in our social safety net that COVID has revealed. COVID has taught us that we can roll out income support programs quickly when we really want to do so.

As I near the end of my time, let me take a moment to address one last phenomena I observed in our committee discussions and one that I found very disturbing. It was the tendency of some members to mix together issues of suicide and medical assistance in dying. These are two completely different issues, distinct both medically and morally.

Medical assistance in dying does not provide a way to take one's own life. The testimony from physicians and families involved in medical assistance in dying told us very clearly that no one involved in medical assistance in dying wants anyone to die: not the families, not the physicians and certainly not the patients themselves. Medical assistance in dying is about those who are already dying and are far along that path and in intolerable suffering. It is about them being able to have control about how their life ends and when that suffering for them and their family will come to an end. It is not about choosing to die.

The New Democrats continue to support Bill C-7, as it contains significant measures that will help bring an end to unnecessary suffering and provide the necessary safeguards in the second track for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It will do so in time to meet the deadline hopefully imposed in the Truchon decision.

We will continue to demand that we get started on the statutory review, which should already have begun. Proceeding with Bill C-7 without proceeding with the review is only getting half the job done on medical assistance in dying. At the same time, it potentially undermines public support for medical assistance in dying, which so far has only continued to grow.

In conclusion, I want to say again that I believe as a society we must do a better job of providing for the most vulnerable among us and those who are differently abled. In the case of the tragic deficiencies in end-of-life care and in the lived experiences of people with disabilities, COVID has taught us how much further we have to go toward a fully compassionate and fully equal society. I urge all parliamentarians not to ignore those lessons.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member has any concerns about the fact that the CMA never consulted with its members about Bill C-7. Is it not disingenuous to suggest they all agree when they were never consulted? It sounds like fake news to me.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the questions that I am always ashamed gets asked in Parliament. I am not in the business of undermining professional organizations in how they represent their members, nor am I in the business of spreading fake news. However, given some of the comments from the member in this debate, I can see why fake news is on her mind.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

I understand this is a challenging and passionate issue, but the member's insult to my female colleague went way over the line for any kind of parliamentary discourse and he should be required to apologize for it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member, but I did not hear anything unparliamentary in the hon. member's response, so I do not think he was crossing a line.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I know he worked with my colleague from Montcalm on this issue.

For the past few weeks, representatives from a major women's rights organization, AFEAS, have been consulting with me on Bill C-7, since I am the critic for the status of women. They are worried. They are asking me where the process is at and telling me they would be willing to give evidence. After yesterday's vote on Bill C-7, I spoke with Government of Quebec officials who are following this closely and waiting to see what will happen with the infamous December 18 deadline.

This morning Le Devoir is reporting that the leader of the Conservative Party is not at all concerned about that December 18 deadline, nor is he concerned about the effects this legal vacuum could have in Quebec.

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on the effects this legal vacuum will have on the too many people who will continue to suffer if no agreement is reached by December 18.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concern. I have not actually seen the comments by the leader of the Conservatives, but I have heard it from other Conservatives. They imply that we do not need to take into account the considerations of people facing these issues in Quebec by meeting the deadline from the court.

Why are we at this late date to meet the deadline? That lies squarely at the feet of the Liberal government. However, I believe it is important that we provide approval of Bill C-7 in time to meet the deadline imposed by the court so that we do not leave people in Quebec without necessary protections.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always learn so much from my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. I appreciate his very thoughtful speech today. The coverage on it was remarkable.

I want to ask about the idea of providing dignity, whether it is dignity in the choices patients are making, the dignity of the health community or the dignity of people living with disabilities. A letter was sent to the Minister of Health asking to provide additional dignities, and I think the federal government can provide more supports.

The $2,200 is absolutely a start for a guaranteed basic income, but what more can be done?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her kind words disguised as a question.

The proposal we made to the government for a federal income support program at the national level would free up lots of money in the provinces. It is my hope that provinces would then use the money they had been providing for income support to provide additional methods of assistance to people, whether it is modifying homes so they can stay in their own homes or care assistance. Whatever those people with disabilities need to reach their full potential in life would be more available if the provinces could shift that money to provide supports.

It is really important that Parliament seriously consider taking away the fears that many in the disability community have, as the failure to provide them supports makes them make uncomfortable and awful choices down the line.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I read a report this morning from the Canadian Mental Health Association in collaboration with the University of British Columbia. It has said that during this time of COVID, four times as many Canadians are having suicidal thoughts. There are some very serious mental health issues right now that are leading to people considering suicide and mostly likely committing suicide. I know some are requesting MAID.

My assistant told me about her friend's 100-year-old grandmother, a very vibrant, social person who liked to get together with people, and in good health for 100 years old. However, because of the safety precautions, the necessary safety precautions, she was isolated, became more and more depressed and she sought MAID and was approved for it even though she was healthy.

I know the legislation is meant to protect people and not meant for people with mental health challenges or depression, but in this situation, it was approved. The concern is that mental health, mental anguish and depression will lead to MAID.

The member talked about it being for terminal illnesses—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many things I would like to address in that question. First, however, I want to stress again that medical assistance in dying has nothing to do with suicide. These are two completely different issues. I do respect the challenges that COVID has brought with respect to mental health across the country. That is a separate issue for us to address.

In the example he gave, he is doing something that has been done over and over again, and that is to repeat second-hand anecdotal information, which I have no way of verifying, nor does he. However, on the face of what he said, this person does not and could not qualify for medical assistance in dying. Mental illness, as the sole underlying condition, is not allowed as a condition for medical assistance in dying. If a practitioner had provided it solely on that basis, that person would be in violation of the law and his or her professional ethics.

In those cases, we have seen a report on medical assistance in dying and the number of complaints that have been filed on professional ethics or criminally for people providing medical assistance in dying to those who are not eligible is zero.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has done an excellent job at taking down many of the points that have been raised in opposition to this bill.

It was disappointing to hear Trump-like language in an attempt to undermine the Canadian Medical Association. In the entire opposition, there seems to be a lack of trust for medical professionals, that they cannot regulate themselves and they cannot provide the necessary oversight even though they do so for medical procedures all the time. I hope the member could comment on that.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question gives me a chance to thank four practitioners, and I will not name them for reasons of privacy, who provide medical assistance in dying. They shared a lot of their personal time with me to talk about what it meant to them as physicians to provide this service. They feel that medical assistance in dying is a way of fulfilling the highest ideals in their medical oath, that they are assisting people in avoiding unnecessary suffering and they are assisting families in that task.

Frankly, they have been appalled by some of the wild charges that have been alleged about what they are doing in their professional task in helping people with the end-of-life issues they face.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I share some geography, my riding being Saanich—Gulf Islands and his being Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. Anyone observing will know that our ridings are near each other.

I could not be prouder to have someone from Vancouver Island so strongly explain and so clearly set out the difference between what is in the legislation and some of the quite unfortunate, even deliberate, fearmongering statements that we have heard in the House. I regret very much that Canadians could imagine for one moment there was such a thing as same-day death approval in this act.

On behalf of the Green Party, I think I can take the leap to say that we totally support and are very pleased with the initiative of the hon. member and the member for Elmwood—Transcona to ensure disability payments, essentially a first step toward guaranteed livable income.

Could the member quickly explain again the safeguards that would prevent some of the more extreme examples that have been put forward in the House?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress this again. Bill C-7 would not change the basic requirements for receiving medical assistance in dying. People must have an incurable medical condition and be in an advanced state of irreversible decline and intolerable suffering. Two independent medical assessors are required to certify that the patients meet those requirements. If and only if those requirements are met, then they proceed to a medical assistance in dying. A practitioner, doctor or nurse practitioner can then render that assistance to people in what are sometimes very difficult moments at end of life.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from December 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the third time and passed.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it my pleasure to rise on behalf of the Conservative Party on probably the most important bill before this Parliament. I say that, without knowing how long this Parliament will run, because this is a decision with respect to the state interacting with one of its citizens at end of life.

This is probably one of the most important debates this Parliament will have, and if there is commentary coming from the government or from some pundits on why we are late and why we are approaching a time limit, that was entirely in the hands of the government for three reasons.

First, the government decided, with no reason and no grounds, to prorogue Parliament. We lost several months that could have been spent having substantive and compassionate debate on Bill C-7 and a range of other things.

Second, the bill results from a Superior Court judgment in Quebec, and normally something so fundamental would have been appealed to two higher courts: the Court of Appeal in Quebec and the Supreme Court of Canada. That was not done, and it should have been. Most legal observers believe this should have been the case.

Finally, as we may hear from the government and the Attorney General today, they could have asked for more time, given the prorogation, their own delays and the pandemic. I think they will end up doing that today, and that is appropriate.

We are getting close to the deadline for this bill because of the government's inaction. The government was slow to appeal a Quebec court decision. The government also prorogued Parliament. That is why we are so close to a deadline set by a Quebec court decision.

As I said when I spoke to the previous bill, now Bill C-7, four and a half to five years ago, when we debate the role of the state at the end of life of one of its citizens, there is compassion on both sides. There are people who do not want to see the suffering of someone near the end of life.

I will speak to the Sue Rodriguez case, when the Supreme Court was first charged with this. Someone with ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease, loses their physical abilities and is confined in a horrible way. Approaching end of life, are they able to consent in the same way that someone would otherwise and make their own decisions about end of life?

There is compassion from people who want the well-being of their loved ones to be provided for. There is also compassion from people who are concerned about the state making determinations about quality of life. In fact, the justice in Quebec quoted many speeches from the last Parliament on the previous bill, following the Carter decision, including my speech. I talked about the concerns of a slippery slope and that we would be back in a few years. I said more vulnerable people might be swept into a law, and I am sad to say that is exactly where we are.

As a parliamentarian, a lawyer, a father and the son of a brave woman who fought cancer, with profound memories of her from the palliative stage of that disease when I was nine, I am here to make sure the bill is debated properly and that safeguards are provided. Anyone who suggests we should be rushing this debate does not understand how profound it is.

Today's debate should be approached with respect and compassion. It is not a normal debate on normal policies. We are talking about the power of the government to take away a person's life at that person's request. It is a very serious action, and the debate that seeks to establish an appropriate legal framework is a necessary one. We are talking here about the value of human life, about human dignity.

I know that people on both sides of this debate have good intentions, but I am concerned that the bill is a first dent in the value we place on life. It is a slippery slope that we should not be taking with such a vague law and no safeguards.

In the Rodriguez decision, Justice Sopinka, who represented the Supreme Court at the time in the 1990s, talked about the distinction of a passive role of the state and an active role of the state at the end of life. “Passive” refers to palliative care, assistance with pain and, potentially, non-intervention, do not resuscitate, but the active role, when the state takes that role, attaches to section 7 of the charter, which is based on human dignity. The Attorney General clerked under Peter Cory of the same court, and in fact, the McLachlin and Cory dissents both focused on human dignity with respect to section 7 of the charter.

All of them talked about the role of the state in protecting the decisionally vulnerable, as they were called, people who could be pushed into end-of-life treatment because they felt they were a burden. This has been talked about since the 1990s, and this Attorney General is removing the safeguards from our regime. Every ounce of case law on the issue of assisted dying, euthanasia or assisted suicide talks about protecting those vulnerable.

That went on in the Carter decision, which reinterpreted and changed the stare decisis, the precedent of the Rodriguez decision, because of societal norms, but the one thing that did not change was the need for safeguards. In fact, the Carter court said that a “carefully designed...system of safeguards” was required and that they would be scrupulously monitored.

That is the only way the Carter decision changed the Rodriguez decision and allowed there to be assisted dying in Canada. However, Bill C-7 does not provide for assisted dying. It provides for assisted suicide, where the end of life, the reasonably foreseeable death, is removed entirely, and it removes the safeguards that every decision of the court on this subject has said are fundamental to the state having a role at end of life.

The Attorney General seems to be out of touch with the entire body of case law with respect to assisted death. I think it is shameful that he is not allowing reasonable amendments to reinsert a scrupulous approach to the vulnerable. He is removing the 10-day waiting period. There is no coming back from this decision, and when the state plays an active role in the death of its citizens, the two-witness requirement is also removed.

The Attorney General, who is entirely out of touch with the case law in Canada, out of touch with the decision of Mr. Cory whom he clerked for, is rushing something, suggesting we are being unreasonable, when all Conservatives want to do is safeguard the decisionally vulnerable, something both Supreme Court decisions in Rodriguez and Carter said was critical to human dignity, section 7 of the charter. All disability groups are opposed to this bill the way the government is presenting it because of the removal of safeguards and because of the redefinition.

Inclusion Canada's Krista Carr said:

Equating assisted suicide with an equality right is a moral affront. Having a disability should not become an acceptable reason for state-provided suicide. MAiD should remain restricted to the end of life.

One of the leading scholars, which I would invite the Attorney General to review, Professor Grant from the University of British Columbia, said:

Disability organizations hear almost daily from individuals who are considering MAiD because the appalling lack of state supports makes life intolerable. It may be because they are institutionalized, because they cannot afford treatment, or because they are socially isolated. We have seen the social inequality of illness with COVID-19.

The government is a little upset the Conservative caucus is demanding what two decisions of the Supreme Court have demanded and is asking for, reasonably, what section 7 of the charter is built upon, which is dignity of life, to make sure we do not change the regime in a manner I spoke about five years ago: a slippery slope for the decisionally vulnerable such as the elderly isolated in a home.

We heard testimony of some people feeling like they were pushed or pressured because of the cost or lack of institutional care. Some of the professors and some of the indigenous witnesses who have raised concerns also raise concerns about generational trauma, residential schools and people who are facing that trauma and pain in their lives. Is the state then going to provide assisted suicide as a tool or should we help these people?

This is about compassion. This is about an appropriate role for the state. This is not about fundamentally changing a regime that has only been in place for a few years.

I said at the outset there is compassion on both sides, but there is an entirely out-of-step approach from the Attorney General. In fact, the former attorney general, the member for Vancouver Granville, has also criticized the reckless approach of this Attorney General with respect to the post-Carter decision regime, because he would be removing the safeguards both courts have said need to be scrupulously monitored: 10 days, a few witnesses.

All major disability groups in Canada agree with the compassionate and reasonable position being presented by my Conservative colleagues. I am very proud of the advocacy we have shown. We have also been joined by legal scholars, indigenous leaders and people working with people with mental health issues. I have worked on mental health and suicide prevention for many years since my time in the military.

We are also not providing enough palliative care support. Going back to the original Rodriguez framework, where Justice Sopinka talked about the passive role of the state, allowing someone's life to end without pain and to be present, allowing family gathering at palliative, we are not doing that well enough.

The government has actually violated the spirit of the Carter decision by removing the safeguards. Remember, the safeguards, the carefully designed safeguards, were fundamental to the Supreme Court Carter decision change from Rodriguez. Why after a few years would the government remove those, particularly when some of the vulnerable Canadians, seniors and disability rights advocates, have said they feel under attack? In fact, another comment Ms. Carr made is that Bill C-7 is their “worst nightmare”.

What is the job of Parliament? We are not just delegates here to be polled. We are here to bring our perspective in the Burkean tradition of being passionate representatives for our communities, our families, our values and our points of view. I cannot think of a more important debate for us to bring those values.

As the Supreme Court said back in Rodriguez and throughout, this is about human dignity with respect to access to section 7. The early debate, both in Carter and Rodriguez, was always that we cannot have an unfairness for someone who cannot physically make a decision about end-of-life suicide, so we have to have an approach. That was McLachlin's approach in the dissent in Rodriguez. She thought that choice was cruel with respect to Sue Rodriguez.

It was never about just having a widespread approach to assisted suicide with no irremediable or reasonably foreseeable death being a part of it. Now this is opening up a state-run regime with respect to suicide, with vague terms about grievous conditions or just disability writ large. The same concerns I raised reasonably a few years ago around people with mental health issues, who could get help if we are there for them, or people who are decisionally vulnerable, as the court said for now a generation, are why the safeguards are there.

The government should not lecture us about timelines when it prorogued Parliament and when it did not appeal a superior court decision on a fundamental issue just a few years after the Supreme Court ruled in Carter. It is now ignoring disability advocates. It is ignoring indigenous leaders. It is ignoring physicians, legal scholars and the opposition. What are we demanding? We are not saying eliminate the system that was established in the last Parliament. We are saying to maintain the safeguards. There would be no Supreme Court right under section 7 of the charter were it not for the safeguards.

I am proud that the Conservative opposition is not going to step away and allow our vulnerable to be forgotten. We are going to scrupulously maintain the safeguards that the state should have when we are making profound decisions about the end of life of our citizens. We are here for the people without a voice. We are here for the people who might feel coerced, in isolation during a pandemic, into an end-of-life regime without full capacity and consent.

If we step outside the bubble, I do not care what political party one belongs to or associates with, all Canadians want to make sure the vulnerable are provided for. That is all we are asking. If we have to stay here for 24 hours a day, seven days a week to stand up for those Canadians, we will do that.

Who is being unreasonable? Is it the Attorney General, who does not understand the entire body of jurisprudence with respect to assisted death? I am actually very disappointed. He was a law professor at McGill and seems to have not read the Rodriguez and Carter decisions. He is removing safeguards that are fundamental to protecting the decisionally vulnerable as per Sopinka, McLachlin and Cory in Rodriguez, and the McLachlin court in Carter.

Every single indication from the Supreme Court of Canada says that we cannot have end-of-life assisted dying, assisted suicide, euthanasia or whatever words someone uses, that section 7 charter right cannot be accessed without a very carefully crafted and scrupulously governed system of safeguards. This includes a 10-day review period to make sure somebody was not at their lowest point and then the state moves in, and two witnesses to make sure that there is not someone vulnerable being forced or coerced into it. These are very reasonable amendments that not just Conservative MPs are asking for, but Canadians are asking for.

We are adopting a reasonable approach by proposing amendments to the bill on medical assistance in dying. It is a critical issue for our society and that is why we, the official opposition, are here to defend the most vulnerable members of our society. That is why we already proposed reasonable amendments for seniors, people with disabilities and Canadians with mental health problems.

This is a very important debate for the well-being of Canadians across the country. That is why I am proud of my caucus, whose approach to Bill C-7 is very compassionate and defends the most vulnerable members of our society.

It is up to the government. Today, it might be asking for a delay from the court, which is something it should have done months ago. It should have appealed the decision or not prorogued Parliament. Even with the fact that we feel there is a deadline, we should not lose sight of who we are safeguarding.

When we come to the bar and bow to you, Madam Speaker, that is because Parliament is a court. It is the highest court and we have a dialogue with the Supreme Court on decisions related to the charter. Parliament is supreme. When the government suggests we are being unreasonable because we want to keep with the spirit of the Carter decision, this court should be respected that as well. I have not seen this from the government yet.

If the government just reviewed the Carter and Rodriguez decisions and provided those safeguards, held up the dignity required under section 7 of the charter, we could ensure that the right guaranteed in Carter would be respected with a rigorous and scrupulous approach to protecting the decisionally vulnerable and most vulnerable in our society. The Conservatives are here to provide those reasonable amendments for the well-being of our country.

I appreciate the opportunity today to allow Canadians to realize that it is not the Conservative Party holding up legislation or not respecting a court. This is the Conservative Party asking for the will of the Supreme Court, through these two decisions, for our most vulnerable in society to be protected.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the leader of the official opposition, for his speech.

We are accountable to Quebeckers and Canadians, as well as to the Quebec Superior Court.

I would like to know how the leader of the official opposition can believe it is appropriate to disregard a decision from the Quebec Superior Court.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, what is appropriate is to protect the most vulnerable in our society. That was actually the essence of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in both Rodriguez and Carter.

Unfortunately, that was not the Liberal government's approach. Now here we are, with the deadline fast approaching, because of prorogation. We are here because of the government's inaction. That is why we are proposing reasonable amendments. That is why we will continue to protect the most vulnerable, including seniors at the Herron long-term care centre, for example, who are very isolated.

We are here for Canadians, people with disabilities and seniors. That is why the amendments, the safeguards, are so important.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to make a correction. The hon. member spoke a lot about mental health, but the bill explicitly states, in paragraph (2.1), “For the purposes of paragraph (2)?(a), a mental illness is not considered to be an illness, disease or disability.” Then, if we go “Safeguards”, paragraph (3.1), one of the criteria is “that the person meets all of the criteria set out in subsection (1)”. I say that because this is a critical debate in the House and we are responsible for providing the Canadian public with accurate information.

He spoke a lot about dignity. I know, from the advocates I have worked with in the disability community, that one of the things they are fighting for is a guaranteed liveable basic income so they can live in dignity. Does the member opposite support implementing a guaranteed liveable basic income as has been requested from the disability community?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for raising what she perceives is a carve-out for mental health. The challenge is this. Mental health can be approached with a psychiatry handbook and a recognized condition. Mental health can also be someone who is in depression in a grievous harmful situation, isolated in a pandemic, a senior who feels her or she is a burden on his or her family. That is why, going back to the Rodriguez and Carter decisions, which I would invite all members to read, including the Attorney General, consent and capacity and 10-day review is to ensure there is no state-of-mind issue for someone is feeling coerced or vulnerable.

Mental health is a part of the end-of-life decision, the stress and pain, all those considerations. That is why the Carter decision said that a carefully designed system of safeguards was critical. The government does not have that. We are asking for reasonable safeguards to protect our most vulnerable.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the contributions of the Leader of the Opposition. I would put out that safeguards have in fact been increased in the legislation, particularly in track two with respect to the 90-day requirement for an assessment and the expertise being required as part of that assessment panel.

When we consider why track two is appropriate, the member opposite went to great lengths to cite extensive jurisprudence. The jurisprudence in the Truchon decision indicated that not making medical assistance in dying available to persons who were not at the end of life, including persons with disability, like Madam Gladu and Monsieur Truchon, was itself unconstitutional.

Given that we have dealt with extensive consultations, given that Canadians are needlessly suffering and given that we have straightforward legislation before us, will the member opposite use his leadership with respect to his caucus to ensure we can have a vote on the legislation to address, and no longer prolong, the needless suffering of Canadians?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, when the government removed the irremediable, it changed this from an assisted dying regime into an assisted suicide regime. The hon. parliamentary secretary is recognizing that in his own comments.

The government is removing some of the safeguards. It is making it easier to access, making more decisionally vulnerable people vulnerable and removing two of the safeguards in the process. It actually flies directly in the face of Rodriguez and Carter's clarity on dignity and on the decisionally vulnerable.

I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to use his leadership. Our amendments really just ask the government to stop eroding protections. The government is running roughshod over what the court has said. When it takes out that approaching reasonably foreseeable death, that is gone. That should concern Canadians, particularly as we have seen the isolation in this pandemic for some of our seniors, that fear. They are the decisionally vulnerable. That is who the courts have been asking us to look after.

I would like the hon. parliamentary secretary to use his leadership, perhaps dropping a copy of those judgments off with the Attorney General. The former attorney general, who passed the regime following the Carter decision, a former Liberal until she was pushed by the Prime Minister, has concerns with the approach as do disability groups, a lot of indigenous leaders, mental health physicians and the opposition. All we are asking for is a few reasonable safeguards. It is up to the hon. parliamentary secretary to put down the talking points.

When the Liberals decided to prorogue, they put the time pressure on. We will continue to stand up for our most vulnerable.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the Leader of the Opposition outline how the bill shifts toward an assisted suicide regime. Then we heard the parliamentary secretary talk about Canadians who were needlessly suffering. I am concerned about the intersection of those two points without the state looking at doing everything possible to preserve the ability of Canadians to live with dignity.

Could the Leader of the Opposition talk about the need for the government to move on issues like support for persons with disability, housing, palliative care and the atrocities we see in long-term centres across the country right now? Could the Leader of the Opposition talk about how it is not just about this legislation, but that there needs to be a framework in which people are not needlessly suffering because they see hope and a choice through other services and programs?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill for her advocacy for some of the folks we are talking about.

As was said by some legal scholars, by Prof. Grant, UBC and others, when we do not even have efficient palliative, end of life, care, when we have some challenges with long-term care, those holes and gaps have been exposed through the pressures of COVID, when we know there are rising mental health issues, there is trauma experienced by those who have suffered childhood abuse and other things, when our society is scrambling to get supports for the vulnerable to address those issues, but on the other hand is actually eroding safeguards to keep those people out of a state-run system with respect to end of life, we are failing our citizens.

Our approach here is to ensure that the vulnerable are protected. As I said to the former Liberal attorney general, who brought in the post-Carter regime, I was becoming comfortable with the other regime, knowing that safeguards were there and that it was to be an irremediable, reasonably, foreseeable end of life. The government is fundamentally changing this and taking out the safeguards at a time when we know there are more vulnerable as a result of the pandemic.

It is reckless public policy on the most important debate our Parliament will have. That is why I hope the government will see the light. With a few reasonable amendments, I think a lot of Canadians will be protected.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very grateful for the opportunity to put a few words on the record concerning Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code, medical assistance in dying, which I will refer to as MAID throughout my remarks.

The bill from the Liberal government would amend the original MAID legislation that achieved royal assent only four and a half years ago. The new bill was initiated in response to the Truchon case, where a federal court in Quebec struck down the clause in the original legislation that said MAID could only be applied if natural death was reasonably foreseeable. The Quebec Superior Court judge ruled on September 11, 2019, just over a year ago, that this clause violated section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person, making this clause of the original legislation unconstitutional.

The court's ruling will come into effect on December 18 of this year. The Conservatives have held firm to the position that this ruling by the Quebec Superior Court should have been appealed by the federal government to the Supreme Court of Canada. Given that it is a ruling that affects life and death, I sincerely agree with our position.

Had the Liberal government appealed, it would have given Canadians significantly more time to discuss this very critical issue, and had the Liberal government not prorogued Parliament for six weeks in August and September, Parliament would have had more time to study and debate the bill. However, this position was resoundingly ignored by the Liberal government. Now we are voting on a radical expansion of MAID, and I have many concerns and will not be supporting the bill.

I do understand the desire for legalizing MAID in Canada. I witnessed my grandmother suffer terribly at the end of her life. MAID was not made available to her and, frankly, I do not know if she would have chosen it. She was a very strong and resilient woman, with a gift of the gab and an incredible ability to write, which I have inherited those gifts. That is why I am able to be here today as a member of Parliament, which she would have been so proud to see. She had these abilities despite not even having a grade eight education. She would have achieved amazing things had she not been born into a very poor family in rural Manitoba.

She tragically suffered a stroke and after that she could not speak or write, her favourite things. Then her diabetes wreaked havoc on her body and her leg had to be amputated as a result. A short while later, the doctors told us that they would have to amputate her other leg. It was really horrible and the worst thing in my life to see her go through this. I wonder if MAID would have been a kinder option for her. For that reason I understand and deeply appreciate why MAID was legalized in Canada.

However, the Conservatives have flagged a number of critical issues with this new expansion of MAID and we worked hard to bring forward amendments to ensure safeguards remained in place for Canada's most vulnerable people. Unfortunately, the Liberals voted against every one of our proposed amendments, and I really do not understand why. We presented many strong, sound arguments from stakeholders across the country, most of whom had no partisan connection whatsoever to the Conservative Party. In fact, this is not a partisan issue and yet it is being treated like one by the Liberal government, which I find deeply upsetting.

When I was researching the bill to determine my position, I was startled to discover that over 1,000 physicians had written to the Attorney General in opposition to the bill. I would like to read into the record some of what their letter said because I found it extremely compelling. They said:

This bill, expanding “medical assistance in dying” (MAiD) to virtually everyone who is sick and suffering in Canada, will, if passed in its current form, make our country the world leader in administering death.

As medical doctors, we feel compelled to voice our dismay...The shock of a sudden illness, or an accident resulting in disability, can lead patients into feelings of anger, depression, and guilt for requiring care - emotions that, with proper support and attention, can resolve over time.

They went on to say:

The care and encouragement shown by physicians may be the most powerful force in overcoming despair and providing hope. Unfortunately, patients can no longer unconditionally trust their medical professional to advocate for their life when they are at their weakest and most vulnerable. Suddenly, a lethal injection becomes part of a repertoire of interventions offered to end their pain and suffering.

Finally, they went on to say:

Bill C-7 would allow those who are not dying to end their lives by a lethal injection at the hands of a doctor or nurse practitioner. Shockingly, most of the safeguards that Parliament deemed necessary in 2016 to protect the lives of vulnerable individuals from a wrongful death are being removed. Under the new bill, an individual whose natural death is considered to be “reasonably foreseeable” could be diagnosed, assessed and euthanized all in one day. We are very concerned that removing the 10-day reflection period and other safeguards will lead to an increase in coerced or tragically unconsidered deaths.

The reckless removal of safeguards previously deemed essential will place desperately vulnerable patients directly in harm’s way and may cost them their very lives.

The comments tie in very well with what we have heard from the disability community at the justice committee and the like when we were studying this legislation. In fact, 72 national disability advocacy groups have opposed this legislation. I personally fielded many calls from my constituents, who were the first to tell me that they usually vote NDP, yet they felt very compelled to reach out to me to express their fear of what this bill meant to them.

There is a genuine terror in the disability community of this bill, which I have heard first-hand, yet those fears are being completely discounted by the Liberal government. I really do not understand why.

More than that, the Liberals are even ignoring the United Nations with this legislation. A UN special rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities responded to the expansion of MAID with clear dismay. She said:

I am extremely concerned about the implementation of the legislation on medical assistance in dying from a disability perspective. I have been informed that there is no protocol in place to demonstrate that persons with disabilities have been provided with viable alternatives when eligible for assistive dying. I have further received worrisome claims about persons with disabilities in institutions being pressured to seek medical assistance in dying, and practitioners not formally reporting cases involving persons with disabilities. I urge the federal government to investigate these complaints and put into place adequate safeguards to ensure that persons with disabilities do not request assistive dying simply because of the absence of community-based alternatives and palliative care.

That is a pretty powerful quote, in my opinion.

We know that there are considerable issues with palliative care. We know that 70% of Canadians, seven out of 10, do not have access to palliative end-of-life care in Canada. I find that to be a shocking number, and I had no idea until I did research for this bill.

I do believe that without access to good quality palliative care, we have failed to offer Canadians a real choice. If they cannot peacefully live out their final moments with safe, reliable care that is supportive and catered to their needs, then I can understand why MAID would be so appealing.

More than that, the COVID-19 pandemic has really lifted the veil on the terrible state of elderly care in Canada. In Winnipeg, our residents in elderly care homes have suffered tremendously. While we have many care homes that are doing phenomenal, outstanding work, others, not so much. A few weeks ago, Manitobans were horrified at revelations of an elderly care home just outside of my riding that was understaffed, and overwhelmed by COVID-19 cases.

When paramedics arrived, they found that some residents had been dead for hours and no one knew. Others were severely dehydrated and starving to death. If we are to provide dignity in dying, we must also ensure dignity in living. This is paramount to the discussion and has been completely ignored by the Liberal government. In fact, in the Liberals' 2015 election platform, they promised billions of dollars for palliative care. This was never delivered.

Further to that, I found it alarming that the 10-day reflection period in the original MAID legislation would be eliminated with the passage of this bill. It is important to note that the existing MAID legislation allows the 10-day reflection period to be waived under special circumstances, so flexibility on this 10-day reflection period is already in the existing MAID framework.

I am really not married to the 10 days specifically. It could be a bit shorter, or it could be a bit longer. I would need to hear from professionals in psychology to truly understand how many days are best to ensure end-of-life decisions are not made emotionally, or made in the heat of the moment, so to speak. However, I do firmly believe, at the very least, someone who requests MAID should have to sleep on it, given that there is no going back from it.

Given there are tough days, whether someone had a poor interaction with a health care worker or does not like their new room or facility, or their family has not visited in a while, or it has just been a physically or emotionally tough and painful day, there are so many reasons why someone within their most vulnerable state should have safeguards in place when making life-ending, “game over” decisions. With this legislation, if it is passed, MAID could be administered only hours later.

What really solidified my thoughts on the removal of this safeguard was the former Liberal minister of justice, the member for Vancouver Granville, who was responsible for the original MAID legislation only four and a half years ago. She questioned the current justice minister on removing the reflection period, given removing this safeguard was not called for in the Truchon decision. The person who brought forward this legislation four and a half years ago is asking why the Liberals are removing this reflection period, yet we received no firm answer from the Liberal government as to why that is. I find that to be pretty compelling. The Liberals, for reasons unknown, went far beyond what was required in the Truchon case when they created Bill C-7, and I believe these concerns are valid.

In fact, we learned in the “First Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada, 2019”, that 3.6% of patients who made written requests for MAID subsequently withdrew those requests. Now, 3.6% may not sound like a lot, but of the 7,336 people who applied for MAID, 263 of them changed their minds.

We should keep in mind that MAID is new in Canada and not easily accessible everywhere. Members can imagine how many people will be applying for this after Bill C-7 passes. As MAID becomes increasingly normalized, we know that 263 lives were allowed to continue to live on because of that reflection period, which is, in my opinion, so important to maintain. However, it will not exist moving forward because of the Liberal government's refusal to listen.

Conservatives also proposed an amendment that would extend the new 90-day reflection period for those seeking MAID whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. We proposed to extend it to 120 days, and the arguments for this are solid. The over 1,000 doctors who I quoted earlier have said, “We live in a country where the wait time to see a psychiatrist in certain areas is 4-8 times longer than the 90-day waiting period proposed in the bill for those whose natural death is not considered 'reasonably foreseeable'”.

Further, we know that after a catastrophic accident causing, for example, a life-altering injury, suicidal ideation is very common, but with the proper support it goes away and a happy and purposeful life can resume. Moreover, it takes much longer in many cases to get a wheelchair or quality specialized rehabilitation care than the 90 days, so I ask this: What good is 90 days if someone is not able to access alternatives in that time period? I do not know.

Additionally, Conservatives believe we can better protect vulnerable patients by requiring the patients to be the ones who first request information on medical assistance in dying, and not have it openly or flippantly offered to a patient as a standard everyday option like pain medication or various therapies. Conservatives believe MAID is an extremely serious matter and should not be something pushed on patients in their most vulnerable state.

Whenever members on this side of the House state the potential for pressure to be put on patients concerning MAID, I do find, during these debates, that Liberal members essentially roll their eyes. They scoff and say that never happens, while the justice committee heard something different. It heard first-hand from witness accounts that pressure does, in fact, happen and has been happening over the past four and a half years.

Roger Foley is an infamous example of this pressure. He was offered MAID on four separate occasions to date and never once indicated that he was interested. In fact, he indicated quite the opposite. When he was having a bad day it was offered to him. It was almost as if they were tempting him by saying there is an easier way and suggesting he should just end it all. I just find that terrifying.

I find Roger's case very alarming. Safeguards must be put in place to ensure that when people are at their weakest and most vulnerable moments, they are not offered something that would end their lives forever, but rather are provided various options for better care and support, if they want it.

Another issue I have with this bill is that it moves to expand MAID so quickly. Really, this MAID legislation's original framework was just legalized four and a half years ago, which is really a blink of an eye in relative terms. The original legislation was thoroughly researched and vetted, and numerous safeguards were put in place to ensure our most vulnerable were protected. Those safeguards were considered critical at the time.

Now, less than five years later, the Liberal government is massively expanding MAID and doing away with many of those safeguards it itself deemed critical in the first legislation not even five years ago. At this pace, I very much believe and fear that we may be debating expanding MAID for children or those with mental health issues within my lifetime, and I find that absolutely terrifying.

More than that, this legislation comes before the mandatory five-year review. I feel that without that we are flying blind without the proper data that could have been revealed in a comprehensive review. There are simple questions I would have hoped would have been assessed in that review, such as these: “Who is taking MAID?”; “Is it mostly the elderly or the poor?”; “Is it racialized communities or wealthier white people?”; “Is MAID affecting certain demographics?”; “Why those demographics?”; “Are there reoccurring themes for choosing MAID that could be addressed by providing better care during suffering at end of life, rather than death?”.

We should be doing everything we can as legislators to provide alternatives to MAID that are reliable and easily accessible to everyone, yet the current government is not doing that at all.

What I find interesting on this is that the current Liberal justice minister is responsible for this aggressive expansion of MAID. He, in fact, voted against his own government's Liberal legislation on MAID, the original one four and a half years ago, because he believed it did not go far enough. We have known for a long time what his position is, and that leads me to question whether the Liberal consultations on this bill were really impartial. It may explain why this legislation goes far beyond what the Quebec superior court judge called for in the Truchon ruling.

There are so many questions with this new freedom Canadians have with MAID. I firmly believe we have the responsibility as legislators to proceed on ending the lives of Canadians with extreme caution. There is a profound shift happening in our society concerning MAID, and we must proceed thoughtfully and with thorough, exhaustive research, which has not happened with this expansion of MAID. For me, this expansion, to put it plainly, is too much, too fast, too soon.

Bill C-7 would remove other critical safeguards as well, such as the requirement to have two independent witnesses sign off on MAID for a patient. This safeguard helps to prevent abuse and coercion of MAID and provided much-needed oversight on those discussions with patients. To think a person needs two independent witnesses to sign off on a will, but not to end their actual life, makes me feel as though we are living in the twilight zone.

Further, Conservatives have advocated for amendments that would ensure physicians who sign off on MAID applications have expertise in a patient's condition. One would think that for a life-ending decision such as MAID, the safeguard would be a given, but no, the Liberals disagree, and again for reasons largely unknown.

Additionally, a number of constituents have reached out to me with significant concerns that health care professionals who do not agree with the morality of MAID would be forced to help administer it. The Liberals have insisted that this will not be the case and that the conscience rights of health care professionals will be protected. However, communication on that has been dismal, to say the least, otherwise I would not be receiving so many calls about it. I urge the Liberal government to invest more time and energy into communicating on this specific issue.

I will end with a quote from the over 1,000 doctors who I have mentioned throughout my remarks. They said:

Our profession has been coerced into facilitating suicide rather than preventing it, for ever-increasing numbers of citizens. We watch in utter dismay and horror at how the nature of our medical profession has been so quickly destroyed by the creation of misguided laws. We, the undersigned, declare that the passage of Bill C-7, if left unchecked, will contribute to the destruction of much more than our medical profession, but fundamentally, of a Canadian society that genuinely values and cares for its most vulnerable members. Canadians deserve better.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I myself am a strong advocate for palliative care. I was a founding member of the all-party Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care, and I have the largest palliative care hospice in the country in my riding, the Teresa Dellar Palliative Care Residence.

The member mentioned that the Minister of Justice voted against the original bill, but the reason he did so was because he knew from the start that it was unconstitutional precisely because he did understand the jurisprudence. This makes me think that the Leader of the Opposition was being rather glib when he suggested that the Minister of Justice did not understand the jurisprudence.

The member mentioned that people should be allowed to sleep on it, but prior to the 10-day waiting period, there is an assessment period when people are obviously reflecting on the matter. I just do not understand how the member feels that, by taking away the 10-day waiting period, people are not being given the chance to sleep on it.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member has phenomenal palliative care in his riding. I wish the rest of the members of Parliament in the House could say the same. Had the member's Liberal government delivered on its 2105 promise to invest billions in palliative care, that may be the case in more ridings than his own.

To his question concerning the 10-day reflection period, I still believe it is very important that when the final decision is made, people still have to sleep on it.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for articulating so well the risks to Canadians that this legislation represents.

I want to reference palliative care that the member's speech also referenced. She is correct that in 2015 the Liberal government announced it was going to deliver support for palliative care, which it never did. In 2017, it reannounced that, and it never delivered. In 2019, it never delivered. More recently it announced somewhere in the order of $6 billion over 10 years across the whole country. It is a drop in the bucket to try to improve palliative care across the country.

I would ask the member to comment on the state of palliative and perhaps reference her grandmother again. She made a poignant reference earlier about her grandmother's end-of-life care and how palliative care played into that situation. I would ask her how it could be improved going forward.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are many palliative care facilities in my riding that are absolutely phenomenal and doing incredible work, particularly during this pandemic. As I remarked in my speech, there are a number of other care homes for the elderly in Winnipeg that are not doing so well. As I mentioned, at one point the situation was so dire, with so many COVID cases and such a staff shortage, that paramedics were called and when they arrived they were completely dumbfounded by what they found. There were numerous people who had been dead for hours and no one knew they had died. People were starving: “starving to death” was how they described it.

My grandmother had decent palliative care, I have to say, but I found that more could have been done to perhaps support her in her final days. Looking back, I would change so much. I think we all say that and think that about our grandparents and parents when they pass on, but I find this a very important discussion. If we are going to expand MAID, we have to expand palliative care.

[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 have been here for five years listening to a great deal of debate on this very important issue. All lives are of equal value. I genuinely believe that. We need to emphasize how important personal care, home care and palliative care all are. I have enjoyed those discussions. Money has been flowing in that area.

Will the Conservative Party be transparent and honest with Canadians by stating the real reason why it is not prepared to see this bill go forward?

It does not support the legislation and it would rather have it appealed to a superior court. If it was in government, it would not be passing this legislation at this point because it would have referred it to a superior court.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite is correct. We would have appealed it to the Supreme Court. When we are talking about life and death, something of this magnitude that is going to be this much of a change for society should absolutely go to the highest court in the land. End of story.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know this issue engages the most profound issues of conscience. It requires great care as legislators.

I remember when the Carter decision came out. I am a lawyer by training. I read it carefully, and I was concerned that the government put in a requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable, because that was not called for in the Carter decision. Of course, that led the plaintiffs in the Truchon decision, Nicole Gladu and Jean Truchon, to appeal.

It is worth mentioning why they did so. Ms. Gladu was 74. She used a wheelchair. She had post-polio syndrome: a condition that weakened her muscles and reactivated her childhood scoliosis. She had difficulty breathing and was in constant pain. Mr. Truchon was born with cerebral palsy. He no longer had the use of his limbs. In 2012, he lost the use of his only working limb, his left arm, due to severe spinal stenosis, which left him almost completely paralyzed and caused painful spasms. He had given up most of his activities and gone into assisted living since there was little left that he could do by himself. Each of those people had been refused MAID under the Quebec legislation regarding end-of-life care, and they did not meet the requirements of the federal legislation because the ends of their lives were not reasonably foreseeable.

Does my hon. colleague agree with the Truchon decision, insofar as it has found the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable to be a violation of Canadians' constitutional rights?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's thoughtful comments. I would have loved to hear what the Supreme Court would have said about the Truchon decision. That would have given me more confidence in that decision, but ultimately, removing the term “reasonably foreseeable” gives me some fear. I was very frank about that in my speech.

I wonder very much whether, in my lifetime, we are going to see this expanded to children who do not have reasonably foreseeable deaths, or to those suffering from mental illness. Concerning mental illness, I know the government has been very clear that this legislation excludes it, but at the rapid pace we are expanding it I am not convinced that we are not going to see this extend to mental illness within my lifetime. I find that to be the most terrifying aspect of this new legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the question from the parliamentary secretary about the difference between the assessment period and the reflection period. I know members of the government have said it could not happen on the same day because there is an assessment period before the reflection period. However, there is no timing set on the assessment period. There is no reason that the assessment period could not happen very quickly. We are still left with a situation in which all of this could happen all at once. There are no time parameters on the assessment period. The government could have, if it wanted to, proposed time parameters around the assessment period, which it did not do.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's question.

I would refer to the quotes that I included in my remarks from the more than 1,000 doctors who wrote in response to this issue and said that it was a real concern to them. I would agree.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could speak about the issue of contemporaneous consent and the fact that the legislation would not even require people to be asked on the day they are receiving MAID. We had a Conservative amendment that would have at least required people to be asked on the day. Is that not the minimum of what would be reasonable?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have concerns with not having to sign off right before. I recognize, and I have heard many stories of, why that was removed. One could give prior consent and then have MAID administered when one has essentially lost the ability to give consent. However, I have concerns on that. Again, this is one of those issues that, had we more time, had this Liberal government not prorogued Parliament, we could have studied it in further detail.

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

Madam Speaker, we are now at the third reading stage of C-7. This means all the amendments that will be considered by the House have now been considered, and we must now pronounce on the final version of the bill and its effects.

Before I speak about this bill in final form, I want to respond directly to what I see as the government's principal argument for this legislation and other similar legislation. It tells us this is all about choice: the choice of individuals to live as they choose and die as they choose. The idea is that moral judgments about good living and good dying ought to be made by the person doing the living and dying, as opposed to by someone else, because the individual is uniquely qualified to make judgments about their own happiness and someone outside their skin simply cannot make those judgments as well.

This is the one serious argument people use to advance this bill and others like it. We should of course appreciate the existence of other unserious arguments, such as the assertion that, “The courts told us to,” or, “This is what people we have consulted told us to do.”

A small part of this bill responds to a lower court decision, but most of it has been invented, out of thin air, by the government and whoever it consulted or did not consult. Over a thousand physicians have signed a letter opposing this bill, and every single disability rights organization that has spoken out about this bill has spoken in opposition to it. These are unserious arguments stemming from unserious readings of court decisions and unserious consultation.

The serious argument made in support of this bill, as I have stated, is that people ought to have the choice to make decisions about their living and dying because they know what will lead to their happiness better than anyone else. This is the argument, but we should also notice how those who use this argument ultimately choose to apply it selectively. Even while suggesting it is all about choice, they insist on changing the words we use to describe the choice in order to make us feel better about it.

The phrase “medical assistance in dying” was invented at the time Bill C-14 was proposed, and is not a phrase used in other countries to describe the phenomenon of doctors killing their patients. If this is really about choice, why do we have to invent new pseudo-terms to make ourselves feel better about that choice?

If I asked members point-blank whether they think a person should be able to commit suicide, I am sure many would respond that this is not suicide. It is completely different, as it is medical assistance in dying. Formally, what is meant by medical assistance in dying is facilitated suicide, or killing in a medical context. We claim to be focused on choice, but we still are uncomfortable enough with the choice that we have to invent new words to describe it.

Some members do not like the use of the word “euthanasia” to describe the phenomenon of doctors and nurses killing their patients after being asked to do so. The Minister of Health told the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that phrases “referring to this bill as 'euthanasia' legislation, which I have heard in the House of Commons, are incredibly demeaning to the dignity of people”.

The health minister may be interested to know the word euthanasia actually comes from two Greek words: “eu”, meaning well, and “thanatos”, meaning death. The term euthanasia means “good death”, and is itself a sanitization of the concept of killing. If the term is misleading, it is not because it is too harsh but because it is too gentle. As we have heard, not all cases of assisted suicide can reasonably be called good deaths by any definition.

Notice that the word euthanasia is never used to describe the administration of the death penalty. The term was invented in order to sanitize the idea of the medicalized killing of a consenting person. It is instructive that a sanitized term for this practice, once people had a full social awareness of its meaning and reality, had to be replaced by a new sanitized term to further obscure the true nature of what is taking place.

No doubt, in 20 or 30 years, the term MAID will be thought gauche and replaced with another, more up-to-date sanitization of a term that no longer makes us feel better about something we naturally feel uncomfortable about. The point is that if this all about choice, and if we are comfortable with this choice, why are we not comfortable speaking plainly about sick people committing suicide and about doctors killing their patients when asked to do so? Would that not be a more plain and accurate description of the choice that many wish to defend?

If there is a practice or activity that people are uncomfortable seeing depicted or hearing described accurately, perhaps we should ask ourselves why we feel uncomfortable instead of demanding that the images and descriptions be put aside.

Members should observe as well that the idea of a choice to die, or a right to die, is being advocated for selectively. Some people have a right to die and some people do not, apparently, so we have to ask why this principle is being selectively applied.

Suppose that I, an able-bodied healthy white man, experienced some great personal tragedy such as the death of a child or the breakup of my marriage. It is possible that following such an event I might start to experience extreme existential pain and suicidal ideation. If I then went to a doctor to share the feelings I was experiencing, I would not be presented with MAID as a way out of the challenges I was facing. The way I look, my health status and other characteristics I have would signal to the doctor that my life was worth living. We know it to be true that when a young, able-bodied person chooses to die, those around them will say, “What a tragedy. He had so much to live for.”

The argument for a choice to die does not apply to those who society believes should not choose to die, even if such people are sincere in their expression of pain, in their sense that their pain is irremediable and in their desire not to continue living, but what if a person who is older, who is disabled, who does not fit the stereotypical social mould of someone who has a lot to live for, presents themself to the health care system experiencing existential pain and suicidal ideation?

We know from testimony from the justice committee that people in this situation are offered and even pressured to opt for MAID. People who are elderly or living with disabilities are often offered and pushed to take MAID without asking for it. This is the testimony given over and over again at the justice committee and confirmed by the minister responsible for disability inclusion, who acknowledged how concerned she is about people with disabilities being regularly and proactively offered MAID that they do not want.

We see here an important and revealing contradiction in the application of the principle of choice. For some in society, death is seen as an unreasonable choice and is actively discouraged. For others, death is seen as a desirable choice and is actively encouraged. This is not just a debate about choice, therefore. Rather, it is a debate about how the architecture of choice is set up differently for different people, based on whether others assess their lives as being worth living.

This is what leaders in the disability community are deeply concerned about: how this legislation includes them and only them in the additional category of those for whom we think death is a reasonable course of action.

Suppose that of my four children one had a disability and suppose that I taught three of my children to always press on because life is beautiful, but I told the fourth child that they should consider death if they ever faced circumstance that they could not handle. Do colleagues think that situation would make my fourth child feel privileged by the special offer of choice or do colleagues think she would feel devalued by the fact that I thought death was uniquely an option for her, based on the presumption that her life was not worth living?

Choices do not exist in a social vacuum. When we speak about choice, we recognize that people are making choices between available options and the nature of those available options is constructed by the society in which they live.

I used to think that people were always better off with more options, that just like a menu at a restaurant, we are always better off with more options available to us: the longer the menu, the better. If I do not like any of the new options available, then no problem. I do not have to choose them, but I should not begrudge other people the opportunity to have more choices available to them, even if I do not like those choices. Nobody is made worse off by the lengthening of the menu. Then I realized that it was not that simple. If I am in a restaurant and the only options available are chicken or beef then, arguably, yes, I am better off with the addition of more items on the menu; a fish option, a vegetarian dish, etc., but there is also a case in which the existence of certain options on the menu fundamentally changes the nature of the experience.

Suppose that while travelling, I encounter a restaurant that offers a human flesh sandwich in addition to the usual fare. It is fairly safe that I would not stay and order in that restaurant even if I had no intention of ordering the human flesh sandwich. It is unlikely that any members of this House would feel comfortable eating in such a restaurant, even if all they planned to eat was the filet mignon. That example illustrates the way that the offer of an additional option can actually change one's entire experience of a place or environment. A person with a disability who is offered death has a very different experience of health care from a person who is consistently offered life-affirming care.

The fact that people are offered or encouraged toward certain choices, and that some people are offered those choices and others are not, changes the entire experience of health care for many people. Part of the response to this brave new world of so-called medical assistance in dying is that people are seeking safe spaces where they can receive care that is life-affirming. There are still many people in this country who have about as much interest in receiving care in an environment where death is being offered as they do in eating at a restaurant where cannibalism is offered. Such people should be free to receive care in a hospice where life is the only choice and where they feel safe from the possibility of pressure of a momentary weakness or from the sense that they are an unnecessary burden. Some are still looking for care that is animated by the conviction that all lives are always worth living, but perversely, those who claim to champion choice are actually attacking these safe spaces. With the absence of conscience protection in this or any other legislation like it, doctors are being forced out of their profession and life-affirming hospice care is being shut down.

We wonder why we have a crisis in long-term care in this country. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that so many of the people in organizations that have historically operated in this space are being pushed out because of a lack of conscience protection. Protecting the conscience rights of physicians and institutions is not just about the rights of providers. It is about the right, indeed the choice, of patients to receive care in a certain kind of environment if that is their desire.

I know from the many conversations that I have had with constituents, including those who are very supportive of the expansion of MAID, that the present realities of the social architecture of choice are top of mind for them during their advocacy. In other words, they want more euthanasia because they find the alternative intolerable. An absence of good care, an absence of effective pain management, an absence of support to live in a way that accords with their sense of dignity and a sense of resignation about these realities leaves them to want to be able to end it all, rather than endure under undesirable conditions, but those conditions could themselves be changed. The expansion of euthanasia, along with continuing pressure on all health care institutions to offer it, will further erode the life-affirming nature of care that people receive.

I remember once having a long conversation with a constituent who explained to me her reasons for advocating for expanded euthanasia. She emphasized the classic arguments about choice and control, and then shared with me a story of being in a care situation and struggling to have a bowel movement unaided. She went to the nursing station for help, and unfortunately was met with a gruff and unempathetic response. Her memory of the sense of indignity she felt, struggling for a long time on her own, and then seeking the help of a person who seemed uncaring and disgusted, was clearly a part of her thought process about the circumstances under which she would want to die.

While I can identify with her feelings in the moment, I think the solution is to give people the choice of compassionate care. It is a tragedy that people are considering death because of moments of perceived indignity that can be quite directly resolved.

Many older people who are considering death say that they do not want to be a burden on others. This is expressed as a matter of choice, but it is also revealing about the architecture of choice. It is generally unheard of for children to insist on paying rent to their parents or living independently because they do not want to be a burden. Certainly, I have never heard such sentiments from my children.

Why are elderly people made to feel like they might be a burden, while children are not? Again, this is an issue of social context. If children were constantly told from a young age that they were a great burden to their parents, that they were costing them money that could be spent on other things, and that they were interrupting their social lives, then children would likely start to worry about being a burden.

Conversely, if seniors and people with disabilities were constantly affirmed for their value and their ability to contribute to society, constantly told that they hold the key to our future rather than constantly being told about the burden they impose, then of course they would be more likely to choose life instead of death.

This is not just a question of choice. It is a question of the social architecture of choice that leads people to make different choices in different kinds of situations based on the limited options in front of them and based on the way that different options impact each other.

To underline this with one further point, it should not escape the notice of members that the government's Bill C-6, the proposed ban on conversion therapy, is built on the premise that people cannot consent to something that is contrary to their human dignity. Although I have concerns about the text of Bill C-6 as written, I agree with the principle that conversion therapy is wrong and should not be allowed.

In light of both Bill C-6 and Bill C-7, it remains unclear to me what the government's view is on the ability of a person to consent to harm. Is it the view of the government that people should be able to voluntarily consent to things that harm them? Looking at these bills together, we might conclude the government finds it okay for people to consent to death but not okay for people to consent to certain things that are deemed worse than death. However, this subjective categorization of certain harms as being worse than others clearly may contradict an individual's own subjective sense of what things are more harmful than others.

It is time for us, as parliamentarians, to talk about the choices that elderly people and people living with disabilities have in front of them, and to give them options besides death, to move from a narrow focus on questions of choice to a discussion of the architecture of choice that puts people in impossible and painful situations. A good society is not just one that gives people the formal right to make choices between different alternatives. It is one that ensures that those alternatives are sufficiently robust so that individuals are able to make choices that truly lead to happiness. Of course not all choices lead to happiness.

People can make choices that they think will lead to happiness, but do not. This is especially serious when a decision is final and irreversible. The wider community has a reasonable interest in ensuring that a person making that choice has at least all of the information in front of them, taking into consideration the fact that people can and often do adapt to new circumstances over time. A belief in the pursuit of happiness entails a belief in freedom but also a belief in the value of encouraging the considered use of freedom through due reflection.

Having reflected on the application of the concept of choice in this context, I would now like to make a few additional comments about the provisions of this bill and the timing of it. This bill proposes to eliminate the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable for those seeking euthanasia and puts those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable on a second track with some distinct requirements. The reconsideration of the question of reasonable foreseeability was provoked by a court decision in Quebec, the Truchon decision, which the government could have chosen to appeal but did not.

This bill deals with more than this question. It also arbitrarily eliminates a number of safeguards that have nothing to do with the Truchon decision. It eliminates the 10-day reflection period. It reduces the required number of witnesses. It eliminates the requirement for contemporaneous consent. The removal of the 10-day reflection period in particular has led experts to point out that this opens the door to same-day death, to a situation where a patient could request and receive euthanasia on the same day.

Some members of this House have strenuously objected to the use of this term. Same-day death is a jarring idea that someone's worst day could be their last, and that temporary suicidal ideation could lead to immediate death. However, those who find this term uncomfortable must face up to the fact that the legislation as written contains no parameters for those for whom death is deemed reasonably foreseeable.

If members believe that time parameters exist, then they should point to where they exist in law. If members believe that time parameters should exist, then they should have supported their reintroduction into the bill. As the law stands before us now, there are no legislated requirements around timelines for those for whom death is reasonably foreseeable.

At third reading, members must choose whether or not they will vote for same-day death in Canada. As Wilberforce said:

You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know.

The Conservatives have proposed reasonable amendments to reintroduce the reflection period, introduce a shorter reflection period and reintroduce requirements around contemporaneous consent and independent witnesses, in particular, recognizing the different experiences people with disabilities have reported with respect to the health care system. We also introduced a requirement that health care practitioners only discuss euthanasia if it is brought up by the patient first. These safeguards matter and would protect vulnerable people by reducing their risk of being rushed and pressured into vulnerable situations.

In response to our call for safeguards, the government said it trusts health care practitioners and these rules are not required. The purpose of a safeguard is not to respond to what may be the average case, but to establish a minimum standard. We are talking about 100,000 people in this country whose professional qualifications would allow them to administer euthanasia. Are those 100,000 so uniquely virtuous or trustworthy they do not need laws to regulate their behaviour while the rest of us do? I believe most people in medicine are doing their best to selflessly serve others, but one needs only listen to the testimony at the justice committee to realize some of those who are providing health care have fallen short of that call. All of us need laws to regulate our behaviour to some extent. If we need regulations, then how can we expect those 100,000 people to be different? Are there no bad apples? I am not arguing they should be subject to unique suspicion, but that they simply need rules and laws to guide their actions like the rest of us do. People charged with taking another person's life should do so within strictly defined parameters for their own good and that of everyone else. I trust doctors just as I trust police officers, but they still need regulations and oversight. We recognize there are some bad apples on our police forces and if we need safeguards for police officers in light of their power to take life, then we also need safeguards for those in power to take life in a medical context.

The government has been working very hard to push the narrative about timing, claiming the Conservatives are responsible for delaying this bill. It should stand to reason that if the government wants us to invest in rapidly passing its bill, it must proceed to persuade us that it is a good bill, which it has not done. The Truchon decision requires a response, but matters would be much simpler if the bill only focused on a response to Truchon instead of a variety of other changes. As it is, we are forced to consider all of the elements together, not just the narrow part that responds to Truchon. This is the government's choice, not ours.

Let us also take stock of how we have come so close to the court deadline. This legislation was presented in February. In May and June, the Conservatives wanted the House to sit in a modified form, but the government refused to allow it. Then it killed its own bill by proroguing in August. All of these moves pushed us into the mid-fall before the bill was considered. It then received a mere four meetings of witness testimony at the justice committee. The government's approach to this legislation has been to delay until the last minute and then demand urgency instead of a considered review. Let us be clear that this is a political tactic designed to subject these radical changes to as little debate as possible.

As a high school student, I had the honour of participating in a special MLA for a Day program at the Alberta legislature. At one of our meetings, a seasoned Progressive Conservative minister explained to us how legislation was passed. Students were surprised by the length and complexity of the process. They asked why it took so long and could the process not be shortened a bit. The minister told us he was glad it took so long because one of the fastest pieces of legislation to ever pass in the Alberta legislature was the Sexual Sterilization Act of 1928, which allowed the government to sterilize people with disabilities against their will based on the analysis that they imposed an undue burden on society. Legislators at that time should have taken more time to listen to people with disabilities and considered the implications of what they were doing. The point that when we are in too much of a hurry to make decisions we risk undermining the fundamental rights of our fellow human beings, in particular, those living with disabilities, has stuck with me to this day.

Those of us on this side of the House who are raising concerns and demanding that time be taken to consider this bill and appropriate safeguards be put in place are on the right side of history. As was the case with the Sexual Sterilization Act of 1928, when this bill is repealed in five or 50 years, I will proudly tell my grandchildren that I took a stand for the universal immutable dignity of every human being.

[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, let me start by saying this whole issue of process being advocated by the Conservative Party is a false argument. The opportunity for debate was and still is there, if that is truly the only interest of the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives need to be more transparent with Canadians. Because they do not support the legislation, it is their intention to prevent it from going forward. That is the honest truth regarding the legislation. I would ask the member to be straightforward with Canadians, admit the Conservative Party of Canada does not support the legislation and that is the reason we are at the stage we currently are at.

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

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is conflating two issues.

Do I think this is a bad bill? Yes. Did I vote against it at second reading, and will I vote against it at third reading? Yes. Did I vote in favour of reasonable amendments from my friend from St. Albert—Edmonton that would have improved the bill? Yes. Does the government control the legislative calendar? Yes. Could the Liberals have not prorogued? Could they have scheduled debate on the bill in May and June? Yes.

Therefore, the fact that we are in this situation of created urgency is manufactured by decisions the government has made. This is the Liberals' own manufactured urgency, designed to limit considered debate on the bill. Yes, I think it is a bad bill, but I also think we could have been debating it in May and June. We could have been considering it earlier if they had not prorogued, and we could have allowed the justice committee to take the time that was necessary.

There were four meetings of witness testimony. Conservatives put forward motions to ask that we have five, that we have one more meeting, given the overwhelming concern in opposition. We had many briefs submitted by medical practitioners that were initially rejected because of some arbitrary timeline that was not even published. It was only after a motion from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton that those briefs were allowed to be translated and presented, but even at that point they were distributed long after the consideration of amendments had started.

This was an unreasonable process, manufactured by a government that wanted the bill to not have to undergo serious debate.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the bulk of the original criteria under Bill C-14, I believe, remain under Bill C-7.

In order to pursue a medically assisted death, a person must satisfy the following eligibility criteria: They must be, of course, of majority age. They must be able to make health care decisions for themselves. They must make a voluntary request for MAID that is not the result of external pressure, for example, from a health care professional or a family member. They must give informed consent after they have received all of the information they need to make their decision, including a medical diagnosis, available forms of treatment and available options to relieve suffering including palliative care. They must have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, meaning that the person has a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability, is in an advanced state of decline in capabilities that cannot be reversed, and experiences unbearable physical or physiological suffering from an illness, disease or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that the person considers acceptable.

Does my hon. colleague support the ability to access medical assistance in dying for people who fulfill those criteria?

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

Madam Speaker, again, there is a bit of a conflation of a few issues here. The member spoke about eligibility criteria. There are eligibility criteria, there are safeguards to ensure that those eligibility criteria are actually being met in a considered way, and there is also a question of context. Do people have those alternatives?

For instance, if a person is suffering in a grievous and irremediable way because they have not had access to care that would address their suffering, they may meet the eligibility criteria. However, there is a problem there in terms of context, in the fact that they are making a decision based on limited options because the system has not provided them with the care that they want.

In terms of the safeguards, we have heard so much at the justice committee, and I encourage the member to look at the testimony from people with disabilities who talked about situations of being pressured and being told that they were selfish for not wanting to pursue this path. We have cases of pressure. Clearly, those are problems and, in principle, members would say that obviously that should not happen. However, the fact is that it is happening right now and the people who are involved in that pressure have not been prosecuted and have not been disciplined.

The government has held up that nobody has been prosecuted under this law so that means it is working well. Given that we have testimony saying it is not working well and there have been no consequences for those who are involved in abuses, that suggests the safeguards as they exist are failing. The government wants to take away more safeguards without addressing some of the context issues. My focus is on addressing the issues of context and the issues of safeguards in order to protect people who are vulnerable.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question relates more to the hospice discussion that is a part of this. I am very blessed in my riding to have two hospices. I have Hospice Georgian Triangle as well as Matthews House Hospice. Both are having a hard time these days because of COVID and fundraisers not getting their money. They are reaching out to the community, and they do such amazing work. It is dignity in dying, not just for the individual but for the family members.

The government obviously is not investing enough money into these types of operations, number one. Number two, how important is that to the bill, having other options for people who are suffering at the end of life?

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

Madam Speaker, it has been wonderful to hear members at different points in this debate speak about the excellent work being done in their ridings by those who are accompanying people in their last days and seeking to provide good-quality palliative care. It is a tragedy that most Canadians do not have access to that and that many Canadians are offered death long before they are able to receive those things that will allow them to effectively manage their pain.

This is a choice that we have to make as legislators. We have to look at the architecture of the choice in front of people. As I said, it is not just about giving people choices. It is about asking what the options are that people have and saying if we pull everything out of that life option, if we do not have proper palliative care, if we do not have effective end-of-life supports for people, if we do not have effective pain management, and then say the only option is death or pain, that obviously is not a desirable choice. What we can do is help people get out of that choice by offering an alternative. If people's only options are pain or death, that is not a good place to be. That is not a place we want people to be in and the technology exists for better pain management than the vast majority of Canadians are receiving right now.

We have had multiple bills in the last five years on expediting the death side of it, but not dealing with the life side of it. That sends a clear message about the priorities of the government unfortunately when it comes to seniors and people living with disabilities.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague talks about context and options. What I am hearing from the disability community in my riding is exactly that. These are people who before COVID were getting about $1,000 a month in a disability pension. Then we gave everybody $2,000 a month in CERB because we felt that is what was needed for people to live in dignity.

The member talks about the tragedy in long-term care homes. Considering those options, Bill C-7 aside, would he support the NDP proposal to move long-term care into the Canada Health Act so that our seniors get the care they deserve? Would he support raising disability pensions to $2,000 a month so that those people can live in the dignity they deserve?

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

Madam Speaker, we are going to agree with the NDP on the principle that we need to do more and do better to support seniors and people living with disabilities. There may be some cases where we disagree on the mechanism, because Conservatives value the partnerships that can exist in the delivery of, for instance, hospice and long-term care. We believe that by respecting conscience, by respecting what may be the unique and particular mandate of some of those private not-for-profit facilities, through partnerships like this we can do more and offer more collectively. Solidarity is not just about what the government does. Solidarity is about what all of us do together, politicians as well as not-for-profit organizations, faith groups and community groups.

We may disagree on some of those mechanics, but hopefully we can work together based on a common framework that says we need to do better in terms of ensuring people have access to a dignified life option.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to address the House on this very important issue and to continue to act as a voice for those who continue to be ignored.

The government is acting as if rushing the legislation through in order to meet the Truchon deadline is its number one priority. Canadians are suffering because of the pandemic, and while people and businesses continue to fall through the cracks, the government is prioritizing expanding access to euthanasia over providing Canadians with the support they need. Shockingly, it is rushing the bill through before the mandated five-year review of the euthanasia regime in Canada has even taken place. This is reckless and this recklessness will cost people their lives.

The Truchon decision is not a binding legal decision for the House of Commons, but the government is choosing to act as though it is, despite calls from this side of the House to appeal it. When we are dealing with something this serious, with stakes as high as life and death, it is imperative that the process is not rushed by a lower provincial court decision. Our vulnerable citizens deserve better. In all honesty, this deadline is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Amazingly, Bill C-7 would not only expand access to euthanasia to those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable, but goes beyond Truchon by eliminating necessary safeguards that are in place to protect the vulnerable. By removing the 10-day reflection period, people nearing the end of their lives can receive medical assistance in dying on the very same day they request it. That means, in essence, for many Canadians, their worst day will be their last day.

I would like to point out an important statistic from the “First Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada” presented in 2019. In this report, it states that as of the date of its release, 263 Canadians who had requested MAID ended up withdrawing their requests. Because of the current 10-day waiting period, 263 Canadian lives were saved. It is clear these people felt they wanted to die on the day the request was made, but decided days later that they wanted to keep on living.

Had the 10-day reflection period not been in place, 263 Canadians would have had their lives ended prematurely. Maybe it was a phone call from an old friend, meeting with a family member or good news from their physician that caused them to change their minds. It does not matter. The point is that they did. Why does the government want to rob Canadians of the opportunity to make that decision? It justifies the need for Bill C-7 with the Truchon decision, but where in Truchon does it say that?

Another important safeguard that Bill C-7 seeks to eliminate is the requirement for final consent. This is one that truly frightens me. The reasoning behind the removal of this safeguard is the fact that a person may lose the capacity to consent to euthanasia before it is carried out if a person's illness advances causing significant cognitive decline. Therefore, people can give advance consent to have their lives ended should they lose the capacity to make such a difficult decision.

It fascinates me that we all agree that if a person is unable to provide advance consent to sexual activity, and that person is taken advantage of when not having capacity to say no, a crime has been committed. However, the government believes people can provide advance consent to have their lives ended, even if they lose the capacity to say no when the procedure takes place. The problem with the principle of advance consent is that it is impossible to know what people's desires are if they are unable to communicate them. We cannot know if a person in that state truly wants to die. Maybe the individual has had a change of heart and wishes to keep on living at the time MAID is administered, but just can't say that. That is horrifying.

The risks associated with the removal of the 10-day reflection period and the requirement for final consent are too serious for me to accept. We should remember that the stakes are as high as life and death. The government needs to protect vulnerable Canadians. It needs to ensure safeguards are in place. The removal of these safeguards puts their lives in danger.

I would like to remind the government of the voices it ignored in its rush to meet this unnecessary deadline, the voices of disabled Canadians, their doctors and advocates. I remind members of the words of Krista Carr, the executive director of Inclusion Canada, who said that this bill is disabled Canadians' “worst nightmare”. There are also the words of Catherine Frazee, who said that the bill tells people like her that their lives are not worth living.

How about Dr. Heidi Janz? She told the justice committee that the bill “will result in people with disabilities seeking MAID as an ultimate capitulation to a lifetime of ableist oppression.” Roger Foley bravely told the committee from his hospital bed that, if the bill passes, he will not survive and the Parliament of Canada will have his blood on its hands.

I am here in the House to remind the government of the words they refused to listen to. The stream of euthanasia access for those who are not dying is ableist and dangerous. These are not my words. These are their words.

Doctors who work with disabled Canadians made it very clear at committee that a 90-day waiting period is simply not enough time. They explained that suicidal ideations are very common when someone experiences a catastrophic medical episode, but with good care and support they are almost always overcome.

In my last speech on the bill, I introduced the House to Kristine Cowley's story. Since her spinal cord injury 33 years ago, Kristine has lived the kind of life that most able-bodied people dream of, but it took her years after her injury to feel great again. She worries that people like her will decide to end their lives when they are at their lowest point.

Now I will share the story of David Shannon. David suffered a spinal cord injury in a rugby scrum when he was 18 years old. He shared that after his accident he lay in bed close to death more times than he wishes to contemplate. David has gone on to have a career in non-governmental organization leadership and a law practice focused on human rights and health law.

I will share a comment from David:

I have accomplished a lot in my life. I've crossed our great country by the power of my wheelchair—coast to coast. I've jumped out of an airplane at over 25,000 feet. I've made it to the North Pole and planted an accessible parking sign. I’ve written a book, performed in plays and on TV. I’ve received my law degree and been a Human Rights Commissioner. And I am an Order of Ontario and Order of Canada recipient. I’ve loved and been loved. My proudest accomplishment is that I lived.

Several times during this debate, members on this side of the House have asked how many stories like this will never be told if Bill C-7 passes. I urge my hon. colleagues to truly understand what is being asked here. Much like the removal of safeguards, knowing that lives like those of David Shannon and Kristine Cowley will be cut short if this legislation passes is far too great a risk for me to accept.

Those who support the bill continue to fall back on the idea of autonomy to justify their willingness to ignore these risks, so I will read a comment from David Shannon addressing this:

What offends me most about Bill C-7 is that there is an implicit licence to promote death. And I ask, why is there not the promotion to pursue one’s autonomy? When someone is first injured, they are compromised. They need to know there are supports available, that life can be fantastic, not coerced to leave their life and loved ones behind.

When someone is first injured, they are compromised. When someone is compromised, their autonomy is impaired. It is in this compromised state that the government wishes to offer death to Canadians. I will also remind the House of the government's absolute failure to provide disabled Canadians with the care they need. I remind the House that it often takes much longer than 90 days to even see a specialist. I remind the House what the Minister of Disability Inclusion told the justice committee: It is easier to receive MAID in this country than it is to receive a wheelchair.

Not only are we offering death when a patient's autonomy is most compromised, but we are coercing patients to die by failing to offer them care. I have asked this before, and I must ask it again: Do we really want our legacy as members of Parliament to be the Parliament that offered patients death before we offered them care? That is where we are headed with this legislation.

Once again, on behalf of disabled Canadians, their doctors and their advocates, I am begging members of the House to stop this attack on Canada's disabled community. They have been crystal clear about the ultimate abuse that their community would be subject to if the bill passes. I am begging members to hear their pleas. We know the abuse we can expect in the future, so the government will not be able to say it did not know, just that it did not listen.

We have been warned in no uncertain terms about what will come, but now I would like to speak about the abuse that is already happening.

Gabrielle Peters, a journalist who lives with a spinal cord injury, wrote the following in a recent open letter to Canadian senators. “I know that Bill C7 must be stopped because I know passage of this bill will result in preventable deaths of disabled people. I know this because I know those already happen. I know they already happen because I was almost one of them.”

The government is rushing to eliminate safeguards for euthanasia when the current safeguards are not even being adhered to. According to bioethicist Dr. Jaro Kotalik, it is evident provincial and territorial authorities are not fully engaged in their role of monitoring, enforcing and reporting on the performance of the MAID program, which they are expected to do according to federal laws and regulations.

This is clear from Roger Foley's testimony to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. His caregivers, who he depends on for every comfort and necessity of life, have suggested four times that he opt for MAID. Roger's death is not reasonably foreseeable, so this is completely illegal.

It is incredible that on the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, every Liberal MP voted against protections for persons with disabilities being added to Bill C-7. Even the Minister of Disability Inclusion, who expressed in the Senate pre-study that she shares some of the concerns of disabled Canadians, voted against our amendment.

Let me remind the House what the UN special rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities said on her visit to Canada: “I am extremely concerned about the implementation of the legislation on medical assistance in dying from a disability perspective. I have been informed that there is no protocol in place to demonstrate that persons with disabilities have been provided with viable alternatives when eligible for assistive dying.”

The opposition tried to address that concern by moving an amendment in committee requiring that patients have meaningful access to care before MAID can be administered. I remind the House that the Liberal members voted it down.

Let me share another concern raised by the rapporteur. She said, “I have further received worrisome claims about persons with disabilities in institutions being pressured to seek medical assistance in dying, and practitioners not formally reporting cases involving persons with disabilities.”

Earlier I referenced the 2019 Health Canada report on MAID. While some of the statistics therein were helpful, there were clearly some issues with the report, namely the lack of any mention of abuse. The information collected was self-reported by MAID providers, so uncovering abuses was unlikely. We know there has been abuse; that much is clear. Cases like Roger Foley's, as well as those of many others, make this undeniable.

Archie Rolland, 18 months before his death by MAID, was transferred against his will from a residence that provided highly specialized care to a geriatric long-term care facility that could not meet his needs. He said that it was not the illness that was killing him. He was tired of fighting for compassionate care.

Sean Tagert, a father with ALS, exhausted from battling for the care he needed to live at home, was told he would have to be placed in a long-term care centre hours away from his home community and family. He was unable to live the remainder of his days at home with his young son and felt the only option was MAID.

There are also the stories of Alan Nichols, Yvon Tremblay, Gabriel Bouchard, Tommy Sec, Jonathan Marchand, Raymond Bourbonnais, Candice Lewis and far too many more. Some of these people are still fighting for their lives and some of them already gave in to the pressure to die.

Why are there so many horror stories? Why is there such a lack of compliance? It is simple: There is a lack of oversight. Many doctors and family members of patients have told me their complaints lie dead in the water. There also exists a culture of severe bullying in medicine, so doctors are scared to speak up out of fear of losing their jobs.

A press release from back in March written by the Physicians' Alliance against Euthanasia said, “The pressure has been intense for many physicians, especially amongst palliative specialists, some leaving even before this latest development. Descriptions were made of toxic practice environments and fear of discipline by medical regulators.”

When I last spoke to the bill, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice asked me if I knew of any cases of pressure that led to prosecution. There are plenty of cases of pressure, just no prosecution. When complaints are made about abuse, there is virtually no avenue for recourse. If someone complains to the police, they are blocked from investigating by doctor-patient confidentiality. When complaints are made to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, they are not followed up on. Many doctors feel cowed into submission before complaints are ever made in the first place.

I attempted to find out from the Legislative Library of British Columbia how many complaints were lodged against doctors with B.C.'s College of Physicians and Surgeons regarding MAID. The response I got is as follows. “The College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. cannot disclose the existence of a patient complaint against a physician, unless the complaint leads to formal discipline. Therefore, the exact number of complaints to the college, whether related to MAID or not, is not possible to ascertain using public sources.”

The response went on to offer me a media scan of newspaper stories related to MAID complaints in the hopes this would be helpful. Imagine that: The only place where any information is publicly available on MAID complaints is in the media. Shame on us. Imagine the cases of elder abuse that are happening under this easy-to-cheat scheme. We have millions of elderly Canadians with no protection from this regime because there is absolutely no way of monitoring it.

Imagine the cases like that of my constituents, who attended a town hall I held when the MAID survey was open for submissions. Together with almost 100 people, we went through each question attempting to understand and respond in a thoughtful way. The more questions we answered, the more we all realized the issue was far too complicated and nuanced for a survey to be of any good.

Then a young father stood up and told his own story of being diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. In the town hall, he explained how he had become depressed following his diagnosis and sought counselling to help him cope with his new reality. Instead, his counsellor offered him MAID. He was shocked that in his darkest hour a professional counsellor would suggest the very thing that was extremely tempting for him, but not in alignment with his ultimate goal to live his best life to its natural conclusion.

The medical professional on our panel was shocked. This was completely illegal under current law and should have been reported, to which the young man said this: How does one even report it? Imagine that: This man, whose life was put in jeopardy, was completely unaware of even how to report the incident. The doctor said he could go online and write a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and told him to do it right away. The young man replied that he did not have the energy. He was going through chemotherapy and was absolutely exhausted. He could not wrap his mind around anything extra at that time.

How many people are out there right now who either do not know who to file a complaint with or just do not have the energy or strength in them to fight? They are already fighting a battle with death and now we want them to go online and file a complaint they may not live to see to its conclusion.

Let me close with a comment from a constitutional lawyer, Derek Ross. He said:

In the face of ongoing evidence that the current procedural safeguards are not being followed, it is alarming that the government is seeking to remove many of those safeguards, rather than strengthen and uphold them. Who is investigating these findings of non-compliance? And who is collecting and consolidating this data? The Carter decision was premised on the assumption that procedural safeguards would be “scrupulously monitored and enforced”. The federal government bears responsibility for reviewing reported cases of non-compliance and ensuring that data regarding non-compliance is gathered and used to inform future policy decisions.

There are horrible abuses of the current MAID regime taking place, which anyone who is engaged with it will know. The bill is a nightmare to disabled Canadians and to physicians across Canada. The risks associated with it are too serious to accept, and the stakes are as high as life and death. We cannot get this wrong.

[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, one gets the sense, listening to the member, that she is very passionate on the issue, and I do not question that at all. However, I substantially differ with her regarding the attention paid, particularly by our health care professionals, family members and dear friends, to the type of abuse that the member seems to be convinced exists, if it is in fact there. I have never heard a complaint. I have never had a constituent complain to me personally regarding abuse in this area. That is not to say it is not there, but I do not think the member supports the idea of MAID legislation, and that is the question I have for her.

Does the member support the need for legislation of this nature, even in an amended form?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I support two very important principles. The first is that choices are patient-initiated, which is very important. The second is meaningful access to care before MAID is carried out.

If we cannot even manage to offer palliative care or psychiatric care, how can we honestly do what we are doing? The palliative care bill that we passed a number of years ago says that MAID cannot be considered voluntary if there is no meaningful access to care. I am begging members to consider that this is a bad bill. We need to focus on offering good medical care.

I will give the member a few statistics that come from the Canadian Association for Long Term Care. The 2017 federal budget included a historic $6 billion over 10 years for home and community care, but long-term care was not included in this investment. The national housing strategy does not include long-term care. The home support work pilot for foreign caregivers does not include employment in long-term care. The 2019 federal budget did not include investments in long-term care. The federal government flowed $343.2 billion in COVID-19-related spending in the first quarter of this year, and not one dollar was committed to supporting long-term care.

How are we going to support our seniors, our vulnerable, if we do not invest in long-term care?

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

Madam Speaker, the member gave an excellent speech.

It is interesting to observe the discussion between some of our colleagues and members of the government. We are pointing out that in testimony, especially at the justice committee, people were reporting significant problems. The member read some additional stories. These are people with disabilities who were being pushed toward euthanasia even when they had not expressed any interest in it. On the other hand, the government is saying that the system must be working, because nobody has been charged, complaints are not being made through official channels, and nobody has called the office of the member for Winnipeg North to report this issue, which I am not sure would be the appropriate reporting mechanism anyway. There is a disconnect, but at the same time, they are both true. It is true that there are problems. We know this. It is also true that people are not being disciplined or held accountable when abuses take place.

The member has spoken about this, but I would love to hear more about how we can actually address this disconnect and ensure that, first of all, abuses are not taking place, and secondly that we have safeguards to support and protect people and that we give them avenues, or have others advocate for them, when there are situations of pressure towards death. The reality is that we will just never know about most of these cases with the problems in reporting and support that are there. We are just never going to hear about the vast majority of times when this happens.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have been an advocate on this issue for many years now, and worked with Mark Warawa, an amazing member of Parliament who is no longer with us. I have had many people come to me with their concerns about issues of non-compliance. Perhaps other members have not been paying attention, but had they, and had they been advocating on behalf of the disabled and the elderly, they would know that this was happening. There is absolutely zero way of monitoring it.

Before anything, we absolutely need to ensure that vulnerable Canadians are protected. We are focusing on Bill C-7 rather than on ensuring that there is some sort of protocol in place, as the UN Rapporteur talked about, where we can monitor what is going on rather than just on MAID providers. We are opening it up more and more, and we have no way of knowing how much abuse is happening.

Again, I am speaking on behalf of those who are not able to speak for themselves and I am saying it is happening. We need to watch out. We need to take care not to push these myths forward.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my colleague a question. Earlier the Leader of the Opposition referred to a legal term called “decisionally vulnerable”. My colleague was just talking about long-term care, but the promise that the government made a full five years ago, in regard to an investment in hospice and palliative care of $3 billion, has not come to pass.

I am wondering how the member feels in regard to whether that would exacerbate the feeling of being vulnerable for those people who are decisionally vulnerable presently.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, what we are hearing is that those who are vulnerable are not able to access meaningful care. Without access to meaningful care, many of them have no choices. They are in our hands and we are not offering them care. We are offering them euthanasia.

I would like to point out what happened with MP Mark Warawa. He was diagnosed with cancer and it took him nine days to see a palliative care specialist. There were only two of them in the hospital there. The fact that it took him nine days to be able to see a palliative care specialist shines a light on the fact that our system needs more support. We need to ensure that these sorts of care are in place for those who are in need of them. To ignore them like this, and to rush this legislation in the way that we have been doing, is absolutely shocking. To see the vulnerable advocates who came forward at the justice committee, and who were ignored, is quite shocking. I would love to see the government stop and actually listen to those who are begging it to ensure there is care, and not a rush to death.

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

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague has been following the debate. I saw her on the screen earlier, so she would have heard everything. One of the arguments that has come up in the course of the debate was a suggestion from the government benches that the bill is being introduced in order to comply with court-ordered rules regarding maintaining the constitutionality of our law. Moreover, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General was opposed to the previous MAID legislation because it failed to do this.

With regard to the various amendments that were put forward by the Conservative Party, is it the case that any of these suggested amendments would have had the effect of causing the new legislation to not be compliant with the Constitution, or is it the member's view that the legislation nevertheless would have been fully compliant if amended as suggested by the Conservatives?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is important to understand that we looked very closely at what our amendments were to ensure that they would be allowed. Unfortunately, the Liberals voted all of our amendments down.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

I rise today to participate in this important debate on Bill C-7, which seeks to expand medical assistance in dying, or MAID. While the Liberal government has summarily dismissed the role of Parliament with respect to the all-party committee study, an evaluation of this law, I believe it is still important to ensure my remarks appear on the record because Bill C-7 is literally a matter of life and death.

Let me begin by quoting my hon. colleague, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, who posed this question to the government during the earlier days of our hybrid sittings. In the context of advocating for defibrillators to be placed in community halls, hockey rinks and other places Canadians gather, he asked:

It will cost approximately a billion dollars to renovate Centre Block. I believe that's accurate. It will cost $5 million to put these AEDs, defibrillators, into all police cruisers. This would save 300 lives per annum. Is the cost of saving 300 lives per annum—one half of 1% of a billion dollars—more or less important than renovating Centre Block?

My colleagues on both sides of the House know I am a strong supporter of our institutions and our history, and of protecting them for future generations to appreciate, learn from and, in some cases, even revere. This is true of Parliament, historic sites across Canada and even statues of our founders for their vision and even, at times, for their faults, and sometimes many faults. My hon. colleague for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston was posing a simple but profound question to Parliament, which was what is the value of life, and how can it be measured? It is a question that all members of Parliament have been consumed with since the start of the coronavirus pandemic: How can we protect and save lives? It is a question that will form the basis of debate in the House of Commons for the remainder of our natural lives and well beyond.

In just over eight months, all levels of government have spent a combined half a trillion dollars in their struggle against the pandemic. Rich or poor, old or young, married or single, with kids or grandparents: it does not matter what families or households look like. Everyone is impacted by COVID-19, and governments have acted. The measures brought forward were, in one way or another, based on one simple, profound truth: that elected officials at every level of government across the country support life, and want our nation to fight for it and protect it.

I stand today as someone who will be voting against this piece of legislation, Bill C-7. Medically assisted death is a practice that, if left unchecked, could in some dark corners of society turn the right to die into an obligation to die.

How is it that a government that advocated overwhelmingly to accept closures and economic lockdowns in response to the coronavirus can be the same government that has unmoored us from protecting Canadians, by vastly expanding the legal parameters of medically assisted death? It is grisly.

I would like to quote the member for Vancouver Granville, the former minister of justice, who stated the following about this legislation, Bill C-7:

[Why] is Bill C-7, medical assistance in dying, abolishing the safeguard of a 10-day reflection period and reconfiguration of consent, thereby introducing advance requests for MAID?

Nothing in the Truchon decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal, which the government chose not to appeal, requires this, and the Supreme Court of Canada, in Carter, insisted on the requirement of clear consent. Palliative care physicians, disability advocates and other experts insist that this is an important safeguard and, like other legislated MAID reports on mature minors and mental disorder, advance requests also raise significant challenges.

It is very troubling that this is the direction the Liberals have chosen. A single decision in a single province by a single lower court has upended the law as it stands today, passed by a previous Parliament.

A culture of life is abandoned. Even the most basic safeguards are deemed by the current justice minister, the cabinet and caucus to be overly restrictive. We have a fragile consensus established in the last Parliament and with Bill C-7, we will undo that important consensus. I hope we can rediscover that consensus again in a future Parliament when its leaders are more reflective on matters of life and death and perhaps will express some humility when we face these questions.

We must, as parliamentarians, even those who sit across the aisle, reject the unwise extension of medical assistance in dying in our society. However, I am dismayed that this will not happen.

Bill C-7 is medical assistance in dying in name only. Its sponsors cling to that description to give it a fig leaf of respectability and to make it palatable to the public. Bill C-7 would strip away both safeguards to protect vulnerable Canadians and even the belief that one's death should be near, imminent or even reasonably foreseeable. Whereas medical assistance in dying has built in safeguards, today's bill does not and we are simply left with medical assisted death.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the issues that is really important is the fact that we have to deal with the courts and court decisions, which lays out questions that government has to look at with respect to legislation.

What I find concerning about the last court decision is that the federal government never appealed it. I do not think there has ever been a first nation ruling in any court ever that the federal government has not appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, fighting tooth and nail. However, on a fundamental question on the issue of a foreseeable death, something that is difficult for all of us to deal with but we understand it, we understand why it was brought in and we understand why the Supreme Court made us come forward with legislation, this was ruled on by a provincial court and the federal government did not appeal it before bringing it in for legislation and then went beyond the decision.

Does my hon. colleague think it would have been better if we had actually appealed it, had a very clear ruling from the Supreme Court and then responded to that?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I do think that would have been the better approach, to examine the ruling and appeal it the Supreme Court to get a broader interpretation of the law.

The last Parliament was right in the approach it took in crafting the legislation by striking an all-party committee. That committee came up with recommendations. Not everyone agreed with it, but the bill that came out of Parliament had broad consensus in the House despite some of the flaws, which even I see in the current legislation. At least it had that democratic participation. As well, it went through the Senate, received royal assent and became the law.

Today we are left with a single court decision, as my hon. colleague said, from a lower court judge that was not appealed. I think that was done as a rush to judgment by the government to make changes. I will note for the chamber, and I am sure it has been noted before, that the current justice minister voted against the current law.

At the time, he felt it was not sufficiently robust or expansionary. Opportunities have allowed him to re-craft that law in a way that ignores Parliament and ignores the input from the last Parliament, which was sought from all parties. Today we are left with a much diminished bill that breaks that consensus. Because of that, we will be debating this into the years ahead and in Parliaments ahead.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, a lot of discussion has been had around the safeguards issue. I wonder if my friend and colleague could comment on how this bill greatly diminishes the safeguards. He talked about how they were carefully crafted in a way that respected the democratic process in the last Parliament. Could he talk about how some of those safeguards have been reduced or completely eliminated in the bill, which go beyond the court decision that the government uses as justification for the bill it has introduced?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly right. The crafters of this bill like to tell us in Parliament and Canadians that they were forced to do it, that a lower court forced their hand to come up with this legislation. However, in many cases, as my hon. colleagues have pointed out and as the former minister of justice who is now an independent member has noted, this bill goes far beyond the court ruling. It would remove safeguards.

For example, the 10-day reflection period is gone. Other important safeguards have been removed. This will have an impact, I believe. It will have a grisly impact over time as medically assisted death becomes just a push to death in some corners as people are forced to consider things they would not have otherwise considered. I worry about this. I worry about it for those Canadians who are in a vulnerable position or near their end of life or even people who have given up for a brief time. Often, we know, with health care and with better care, that people can rebound, not always, and I know there are tough cases out there, but this legislation will send us in the wrong direction on these important questions.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to enter into debate on such an important subject.

The first thing I would like to address is the comments that the Minister of Justice and other members of the government have been making that somehow the Conservatives are holding this bill up, that we are somehow responsible for this delay. I will expand on this, but there is really one word that completely rejects that argument, “prorogation”.

The government came forward with the legislation before. It certainly will not surprise any of my constituents, but when the government used its excuse for the need for a legislative reset, it just happened to coincide with the day that very revealing documents were to be released relating to an unprecedented scandal the Prime Minister and various members of the government were facing, it prorogued Parliament, resetting the legislative agenda, because of COVID, they claimed. Now many of the bills they introduced in the previous Parliament have been reintroduced in this Parliament. Then they make it about the Conservatives somehow holding up the process.

We are 24 days behind in the legislative process during which we could have dealt with this legislation and many of the other important things, COVID-related and otherwise, yet here we are. The words that come to mind about it are not necessarily parliamentary, but it is a shame that we find ourselves in this position and that members on the government side would suggest we are somehow not doing our jobs by debating legislation that is literally about life and death.

Constituents will hold government members to account on this subject. I have heard often from those concerned on all sides of this issue. I will get to some of the comments that the Minister of Justice has made more recently. There is the need for dialogue, discussion and careful consideration so we can strike the right balance. That is why Parliament exists, the hallowed chamber that we all have the honour and privilege of sitting in,so we can have discussions.

I would love to see the composition of the House changed a little with respect to the numbers of seats that particular parties have. I am certainly doing my best to ensure that happens, and there is some encouraging news on that front. However, it is interesting that the people who Canadians send to this place, regardless of the composition, is due to the importance of the dialogue associated with every aspect of our jobs here, whether it be COVID-related, or related to medical assistance in dying, as we are debating today, or the many other issues that come before this chamber and its committees.

We cannot diminish the requirement for us to do our due diligence in every aspect of the word. I am certainly doing my part in this debate and resoundingly rejecting the government saying that somehow the Conservatives are delaying this. The blame for that lies directly on the desks of the members of the Liberal government. They are manufacturing urgency when the reason there is even urgency to begin with is due to carefully crafted political games by members of the government opposite.

As listened to the Minister of Justice talk about Bill C-7 over the course of specifically the last number of weeks, there has been an evolution in his responses. The last time I participated in debate was from my constituency office and the Minister of Justice, the day before, had talked about how the Liberals had found broad consensus on this issue, that they had come together and done what the people had asked them to do.

He bragged about the 300,000 submissions to the consultations, when I know for a fact, and I mentioned this in my last speech, that the position the government came to was certainly different from many of the consults my constituents sent in, which did not seem to be acknowledged.

I find it very interesting that when the minister answered yesterday, there was a change in his tone. The Minister of Justice referred to this as a sensitive subject. He was much more nuanced in his approach, acknowledging that there is wide disagreement on it, but that Conservatives should hurry it up. I am paraphrasing, but the change in the minister's tone is a clear example that the Liberals' hands have been slapped. The Liberals claim to have consensus on an issue when it is clear they do not.

We have disability rights advocates and medical professionals who certainly seem to have a wide consensus, although I will not go so far as to say it is universal, as that is an inappropriate use of a term with such a broad application. However, there seems to be a tremendous amount of consensus, not universal, that this bill is flawed and deserves due consideration.

That is exactly what this institution's role is, whether it is us or the other place debating Bill C-7. I imagine the bill will pass. At second reading and report stage we certainly saw the bill pass, so I anticipate that we will see a similar result and that the other place will also have the opportunity to go through the dialogue.

I do want to talk about how we are facing a tragic irony. The Government of Canada, like governments around the world, like provincial governments and like municipal governments, has poured trillions of dollars into COVID response programs. It is without question that those who are most at risk and most vulnerable among us for this virus, which has gripped our world over the last number of months, or close to a year, are seniors. I find it tragically ironic that, in the legislative reset supposedly prioritizing COVID, we would be debating this bill, which puts some of our most vulnerable at risk.

While governments have poured trillions of dollars, in many cases rightfully so, into COVID relief and response programs, we are here debating a bill that would allow people to end their lives and reduce safeguards on a decision that can be no more final. That tragic irony brings us to today. The government members will talk about the need, and often they criticize Conservatives' debate on many aspects of the COVID response, yet here they are pushing for something that is the antithesis of what all parliamentarians would certainly say is trying to do what is best for constituents, which is doing what is best for Canadians.

Often the constitutionality of this place is forgotten, and the reality that the highest elected office in this land is not that of the prime minister, but that of the member of Parliament. We could have a lengthy discussion about why there is that misunderstanding, whether it is because of the prominence of American media in Canada, education or whatever the case may be, but in regard to the primacy of Parliament in Canadian law and society, the member Parliament is the pinnacle of what this institution is.

There are 338 of us. When constituents talk about things like western alienation, they ask how we can make a difference. My response is that I know I can make a difference because I occupy the same number of seats as the Prime Minister does, as the member for Winnipeg North does, and as does any one of my Conservative, Bloc, NDP and Green colleagues. That is the strength of our institution and why free votes are a part of the reality of this place. I would certainly encourage my colleagues—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government.

[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, it is a false argument for the Conservative opposition to give the impression this is about process. It is not about process; it is more about a lack of confidence. The Conservatives, as the official opposition, are saying they do not trust the Superior Court of Quebec, which I would suggest impugns the character and competency of the Superior Court of Quebec judge. They are saying no to the legislation because it should have been appealed.

My question to the member is this: Will he come clean, be transparent with Canadians and say that the Conservatives do not like the legislation, and that if they were in government, they would not respect the superior court and go to the Supreme Court of Canada?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will respond to the member opposite in two ways.

I would encourage the member to read our constitution, if he has not had a chance, to understand the appeals process in the lower courts, higher courts and the Supreme Court. It has nothing to do with the confidence of that decision, but with the decisions made within what I assume are the hallways or back rooms of how the current government operates. I would encourage the member opposite to look into that process, because I am sure he would find it enlightening.

When it comes to being open and transparent, there is certainly a lot I would say on that. Where are the documents regarding the WE Charity scandal? Where are the documents regarding every aspect of—

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

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think we can all agree that there is a history in this country of human rights violations against those in the disability community. It has been mentioned by Conservative colleagues many times today.

My question is this: Because of that, do they support the call-out from the disability community for a guaranteed livable basic income; more investments into affordable, accessible social housing; and more supports to ensure people have what they need so they can live in dignity, yes or no?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to ensuring that Canadians have the opportunity to live in dignity, absolutely, yes. However, when the member talks about the need for supports and ensuring there are programs to protect the most vulnerable among us, I would simply pose this counter-question: How would that be paid for?

It would be paid for by the prosperity of Canadians, including from natural resources. I have heard from indigenous communities that are troubled by the fact there are political opponents in this place who would try—

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

I must interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle on a point of order.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is a problem with the interpretation.

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

The interpretation does not seem to be working.

It is working now.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crawfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to ensuring Canadians have the opportunity to live their lives in dignity and that we have well-funded social programs and whatnot, we need to ensure our economy grows, so the government has the revenue to pay for that world-class suite. This is as well as a continuous consideration of ways to ensure it continues to serve the best interests of Canadians. I would ask the member to consider supporting some of these resource projects, which are largely supported by indigenous communities from her region and others.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, what a privilege it is to listen to the member for Battle River—Crowfoot today. I had the honour of working with this young man when he was in the Saskatchewan legislature. To hear him represent the views of his constituents today on such an important bill is inspiring. It shows what a great parliamentarian he is and will continue to be for a long time to come.

My question is this: Could the member expand on some of the reasonable amendments our Conservative Party has put forth regarding the bill? Maybe he could give an example or two of why he thinks the Liberal government would vote against reasonable amendments that would have put safeguards in place, such as the 10-day reflection period, which was championed by most people with disabilities across this country.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a little hard to believe that it was only a few years ago that I was a staffer serving this member and others in their work as MLAs. It is certainly an honour to be able to serve in this hallowed institution now with him as colleagues. I look forward to working with him for many years to come. Hopefully there will be a redistribution of seats and a reconfiguration, and I hopefully look forward to that being from the other side.

He mentioned two very important amendments that were brought forward that would have ensured the real crux of what we are talking about here, which is that the most vulnerable among us are to be protected. Two very simple aspects of that were the reflection period and the time limits on reasonably foreseeable death.

To protect those most vulnerable among us should be of the utmost importance for each and every member of the House, so I would encourage all members, with my final few words, to vote the way they feel best represents their constituents, not the way their party leader suggests they should.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of emotion that I rise again in the House to speak to this extremely sensitive issue, medical assistance in dying.

In this speech I will highlight the parliamentary and judicial reality. As the House leader of the official opposition, I have a thing or two to say about that. In fact, I have quite a few things to say about that. I will talk about the reasons why we are gathered today to talk about Bill C-7 at third reading stage. I will also address the substance of the issue, that is, my position and that of my colleagues.

Before I begin, I would like to make certain things clear: this is a topic that leaves no room for partisanship. On this file there are no good guys or bad guys, good positions or bad positions, good votes or bad votes. There are just positions that we are comfortable with, that we believe in and are prepared to defend personally as individuals. This topic may be terribly divisive, just as it may be a golden opportunity to have an intelligent conversation that is above all respectful of differing opinions.

As you well know, Madam Speaker, I do really enjoy political battles. I do not hate the arguments and the counter-arguments. On the contrary, it is part of politics. However, there are issues that do not lend themselves to this.

As far as I am concerned, when we talk about assisted dying situations, the issue is not a partisan one. There are no bad guys and good guys. There are no good votes or bad votes. There are only votes and positions in which we are comfortable. Where we stand firm on that is being respectful to our counterparts. This is the issue, and this is why I want to address it. While sometimes, the House knows, I like to be a little aggressive in my comments, in this case I will try to do my best to be modest, because I want to be respectful to each and every position.

Bill C-7 responds to a decision of the Quebec Superior Court. However, this is not the first time that medical assistance in dying has been addressed.

Members will recall that the Province of Quebec was the first to begin working on this issue, which led to the passage of a law on medical assistance in dying. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I know what I am talking about because I was a member of the National Assembly of Quebec. In passing, I was elected for the first time 12 years ago on this day. As a provincial representative, I worked for six years on this sensitive issue under three ministers and three different governments.

I want to be clear. This issue can be dealt with in a non-partisan way, and the proof is that three premiers—Premier Charest, Premier Marois and Premier Couillard—in two different political parties led the parliamentary work that resulted in the adoption of the first provincial law on medical assistance in dying in Canada. I would like to point out that this was done under the leadership of a premier who was a physician, Dr. Philippe Couillard. I was there.

Then came the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Carter, again, on medical assistance in dying. The federal government had to decide how to define and set the federal criteria for medical assistance in dying. Prime minister Stephen Harper, recognizing that the federal government was on the verge of an election campaign, rightly decided, with the support of the other political parties, not to address this issue. That was the right thing to do.

As I said earlier, this issue is not a partisan one. That is why former prime minister Harper did the right thing and put it aside during the campaign in 2015. Then the new government elected, which could have been Conservative, NDP or Liberal, would table a new bill. I have been part of that discussion. I have been part of that committee.

The government was well advised to create a cross-party and, more importantly, joint parliamentary committee, which had both senators and members of Parliament as members.

I had the honour of sitting on that committee, at the request of my then leader, the Hon. Rosa Ambrose. I had the privilege of having very interesting and fascinating conversations with Canadians across the country who had different points of view. We came to a consensus in the form of Bill C-14. I want to be clear about the use of “consensus”, because the way democracy works, and this is a good thing, means that some people are in favour while others are against.

Bill C-14 was passed in the House of Commons five years ago. This bill included a clause that could be considered a sunset clause, since it required that parliamentarians review the legislation.

It was inevitable that this issue would end up before the courts, and it did. A Quebec Superior Court judge issued a decision in Truchon v. Attorney General of Canada on September 11, 2019.

Through the Minister of Justice, the federal government immediately reviewed the decision, decided to hold an online consultation and introduced a bill in the House of Commons in February. As we see it, that was the first major mistake. I have nothing against the judge or the Quebec Superior Court. Every court has its own responsibilities and makes its own decisions. The judge was appointed to that court in 2017, which was a good thing, and she was appointed to the Court of Appeal on November 20, which was a very good thing.

Every aspect of this issue is sensitive. No matter which law we pass, there will be legal challenges. The better approach, the more responsible, respectful, reasonable approach, would have been for the government to appeal the ruling and then take it to the Supreme Court. As my colleague from Alberta quite rightly said earlier, the Constitution says that every province has a superior court and a court of appeal before cases reach the Supreme Court.

For that purpose, we need to have the highest degree of evaluation. In that specific case, the Superior Court of Quebec is good, but it is not enough. We need to be sure of our judgment on that. That is why the government should have appealed the decision and then let the Supreme Court judges decide what is good and right based on the law, based on our Constitution and based on our Canadian history that we are proud of. That is how it works.

However, that is not how it went. The government decided to call the shots right now. I heard my colleague from Winnipeg North. He is always articulate and always passionate, but with all due respect, I do not agree with him. Just because we are appealing this decision to the appeal court and then the Supreme Court, that does not mean we pay no respect to the Superior Court of Quebec.

It is simply a matter of respecting the judicial process as it is set out in our Constitution, particularly when it comes to an issue as sensitive as medical assistance in dying. Regardless of the law that is passed here, we can expect it to be challenged.

It would have been far better to draft legislation based on a Supreme Court decision, as we did five years ago, rather than on a Superior Court decision. I say that with all due respect for Justice Baudouin, who was just recently appointed to the appeal court by the Liberal minister, and for the Quebec Superior Court, which plays an important, essential and extremely serious role in our justice system.

A debate took place in the House of Commons. This was well before COVID-19, before the words “in-person meeting” became part of our everyday vocabulary and at a time when the word “zoom” referred to a camera lens and not to a way of holding meetings. In short, we have adopted a lot of new concepts in 2020.

Getting back to what I was saying, Bill C-7 was introduced in the House of Commons on February 24 following the decision rendered on September 11, 2019, and the subsequent government consultations. On February 26 and 27, we began debate at second reading. We followed the usual regular, rigorous process. Discussions were held. Things were being done in a reasonable manner, even though it would have been preferable if this matter had been brought before the Supreme Court.

Then COVID-19 happened. The government did what it had to do, that is, it postponed the study of this bill and sought an extension from the court because of the delay. The court agreed. Parliament resumed in September, and that is when the government made a serious mistake. I will come back to that later.

Now let's get to the substance of Bill C-7. As I said earlier, there will not be unanimity on this bill because society is not unanimous. That is the very foundation of democracy. That is why we are here in the House of Commons. Some people are for, and some are against. Some people are right-leaning, and some are left-leaning. Some people are sovereignists, and some are federalists. Society is not a monolithic block. The beauty of society lies in all its different textures. That is the democracy that we must preserve. That is why we need to have intelligent debates in the House of Commons.

That is why, during the analysis, our party proposed two amendments that are entirely respectful and reasonable and that seek to protect the most vulnerable people in our society. The amendments essentially call for the 10-day reflection period to be restored when death is reasonably foreseeable, and for the 90-day reflection period to be increased to 120 days when death is not reasonably foreseeable. The purpose of those amendments is to ensure that individuals who choose to act have enough time to look into their hearts and make the decision that feels right.

That is why prestigious organizations have spoken out against Bill C-7. The Canadian Psychiatric Association has expressed very serious reservations. The Canadian Bar Association has said that it has conditional reservations about this bill. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities opposed the bill. Groups like Living with Dignity, a Quebec-based network, and Inclusion Canada have spoken out against the bill. Indigenous spiritual leaders have expressed very serious reservations. In short, society has spoken, and that is what makes for an interesting debate.

We needed to have a proper debate, with people on both sides of the issue. That is why we would have liked the debate to run its course, without the very heavy influence of the deadline imposed by the Quebec Superior Court.

I will now talk about our work in Parliament, which is essential. I mentioned that Bill C-7 was introduced in February, before COVID-19 and the return of the House. However, the government decided to prorogue Parliament. We know that the Prime Minister made this decision because he was not pleased with the work being done by our MPs on the parliamentary committees studying ethics and WE Charity. The more the work progressed, the more things were heating up for the Prime Minister. He therefore decided to prorogue Parliament.

This prorogation put an end to all committee and House work, and the study of Bill C-7 had to start all over again. As a result, we lost 24 days of parliamentary time. Had we not had this prorogation, we would have resumed on September 21, not on September 23 with the throne speech. Furthermore, had we started on September 21, we would not have lost all the work that had already been done so far on the bill, which adds up to 24 additional sitting days.

The government has the power to prorogue Parliament. Even if I accept the prorogation, why did the government wait so long to introduce Bill C-7? Today we are being told that the Superior Court's December 18 deadline is fast approaching and that we need to hurry up so the Senate can pass the bill in time.

The government presented its throne speech on September 23. When was Bill C-7 introduced? It could have been introduced on September 24, like Bill C-2 was. It could have been introduced on September 25, like Bill C-3, the bill on judges, was. However, this bill was introduced on October 5, costing us seven parliamentary sitting days.

Now, the government is lecturing us, claiming that the Conservatives will not stop talking for talking's sake and that we are wasting time. No. The government has full control over the agenda, and it is the one that decided to prorogue Parliament, wasting 24 days of parliamentary time. On top of the prorogation, this government wasted seven sitting days before introducing this bill, even though it knew full well that everything had to be finished by the Superior Court's December 18 deadline.

Consequently, I will never accept responsibility for the fact that we are still not done, a week and a half out from the December 18 deadline set by the Quebec Superior Court. The government is entirely responsible for this situation, and I will never allow it to accuse us of causing delays.

Not once have Conservative members acted petty, not at second reading, not in committee, not at report stage and not at third reading. Some members support this issue and others oppose it, but we have always expressed our opinions in an appropriate, respectful way.

We never used filibusters or any other rule to be sure that we would let it go, without any decision made. We were respectful, because this issue calls for being respectful. We did it correctly. I am very proud to be the House Leader of the Official Opposition, because members on this side of the House, the official opposition, did a tremendous job at each and every stage. Conservative members were very serious; they were very parliamentary; they did it correctly.

That is the opposite of what the Liberals did at the Standing Committee on Finance, where they engaged in systematic obstruction for over 16 hours to prevent the committee from studying ethics scandals, and at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, where the Liberals engaged in almost 40 hours of obstruction over the course of 10 meetings. That is what I call wasting time. We have done serious, diligent work here, and we are very proud of that.

As I said, the government that is being held hostage by that date, December 18. If ever this bill were not passed by Canada's Parliament, including the Senate, by December 18, what would happen? Bill C-14 will continue to apply, and the Truchon ruling will apply in Quebec.

Basically, the regime proposed in Bill C-7 would not apply, but life would go on, no pun intended. People will keep doing what needs to be done, as they have done from the start, except that the Truchon decision will apply in Quebec and Bill C-14 will apply in the rest of Canada.

I would like to talk about one final, but critical, issue.

With regard to freedom of speech and freedom of vote, I am very proud to be the House Leader of the Conservative Party. On this issue, each and every Conservative member has the right to vote on his or own belief. The best proof of that is that my leader, the future prime minister of Canada, the member of Parliament for Durham, voted against and I did for. This is what democracy is all about.

In our party, we have people who are against, like my leader, and there is me, the official opposition House leader, who voted for. That is what democracy is all about. We should fight for that. Even if I disagree with some of my colleagues and even if all my colleagues behind are not pleased to see that I will vote in favour, so what?

We are the only party to preserve that tool that is so important, that tool that can fight cynicism in politics. I am proud to be part of that team.

During the vote on the amendment, there were even Conservative members who voted against the entirely reasonable amendments that we proposed. When it came time to vote on the report, 13 Conservative members voted with the government on this bill. I was one of those members. There were six Quebeckers, seven members from outside Quebec, anglophones, francophones, people from the east and west and even neighbours. I voted in favour, but my neighbour from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, who is right next to me, voted against.

Let us celebrate this democracy. Let us celebrate this parliamentary system. Let us celebrate full freedom of conscience when it comes time to vote on these issues. Most of all, let us rightly stand up for the work of parliamentarians and vigorously condemn the fact that this government has been dragging its feet, which is why we ended up here with little time to spare.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Official Languages)]

Madam Speaker, when I hear my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, whom I hold in high regard, say that the government is dragging its feet, everyone will remember the Carter case.

Everyone will recall that the Supreme Court of Canada had at the time unanimously ordered the Harper government to introduce the legislation that would become Bill C-14. For 10 months, the Conservative government dragged its feet to such an extent that when our Liberal government came to power in 2015, we had only two months to introduce that bill. We had to ask for an extension, which was unprecedented.

My colleague says that we are going too fast. It is always the same doublespeak: we are either dragging our feet or we are going too fast.

In fact, Bill C-7 is a logical continuation of Bill C-14. My colleague sat with me at the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying that was behind Bill C-14. Does he agree that we failed to hold all the consultations necessary to comply with the Carter decision from the outset?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always nice to hear from my colleague from New Brunswick.

I will just refer to his province because the riding names are very long and I have to admit that I can never remember them. I commend him for the very serious work he does. He is a serious lawyer, and I have a lot of respect and regard for him.

First, with regard to the question about 2015, as I said in my speech, we were on the verge of an election campaign. Medical assistance in dying is an issue that must be above partisanship, while an election campaign is the pinnacle of partisanship. That is normal because we are fighting for our ridings and our seats and some debates may become acrimonious because we are being guided by partisanship.

Partisanship is not at all what is needed in the debate on medical assistance in dying. That is why I think the Harper government did the right thing by saying that the next government should be the one to address that situation and by asking for an extension from the court. That is what was done and rightly so.

With regard to the relationship between Bill C-7 and Bill C-14, I would like to remind my esteemed colleague, who, unlike me, is fortunate enough to be a lawyer, that the Canadian Bar Association expressed some very serious concerns about the constitutionality of Bill C-7 and some of its provisions.

I therefore encourage my colleague to be cautious, while reminding him that, personally, I am going to do like him and vote in favour of this bill.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my hon. colleague for the powerful logic of his remarks today.

While we know the Liberals have blocked reasonable amendments to protect the most vulnerable in committee and here in the House, we also know that the Minister for Disability Inclusion testified before the Senate committee pre-studying Bill C-7 that she has grave concerns and that she regularly hears from people who are appalled to discover that a family member with a disability has been offered what she calls “unprovoked” medical assistance in dying. We also know that the Liberal House leader has questioned the acceptability of amendments to be made potentially in the Senate.

I wonder if my colleague could address the legitimacy of possible amendments, when Bill C-7 does arrive in the Senate, for better protection of the most vulnerable.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my hon. colleague, and if I remember correctly, he voted in favour of the amendment and also in favour of the bill.

The point is that we have to always think of the most vulnerable. This is the job we have to do, but we also have to respect the process. This is why my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton tabled two amendments, which were very reasonable, to protect the most vulnerable of us. The House decided and voted against those amendments. It is sad, but this is the reality. We should respect the will of the House of Commons.

However, as we have to respect the will of the House of Commons, we must also respect the will of the Senate. Most of the senators there have been appointed by the Prime Minister. Therefore, let the Senate do its work. This is why, when we finish third reading and have the final vote here in the House of Commons, the job will continue at the Senate. As the member for Thornhill said, during the Senate consultations, the Minister of Disability Inclusion said that she had some concerns.

Why does the Prime Minister push so hard, especially with a senior cabinet minister who is there to protect the most vulnerable?

[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, the member is very much a distinguished parliamentarian, both from the provincial legislature and national legislature here in Ottawa, and is very much aware of process. For example, Conservatives attempted to bring amendments in the hope that if they passed in committee then they would be in a position to support the legislation.

However, the member is also aware that we do not have a majority government. That means they could not get the support of opposition members for the Conservative amendments, just like today the Conservative leadership supports not passing the legislation. The Conservative leadership has made it very clear that it would have taken this to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that because it did not get its amendments, it does not support the legislation.

Would the member acknowledge, in the name of transparency, that it is the Conservative Party House leadership that does not want it to come to a vote? It is not the process, because even if we debated this for another month, the opposition has the mechanisms, tools and so forth to ensure it never comes to a vote.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will remind my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North that I deeply appreciated, as I said earlier in my speech, that the Leader of the Opposition voted against and the House leader voted for the bill. This is the best demonstration of democracy. The Conservative Party respects everyone, as well as each of their opinions, even all my colleagues here who applaud me. Maybe they are disappointed to learn I will vote in favour, but this is what democracy is all about.

Yes, as I said earlier, we would have preferred to see the Supreme Court table a decision on this issue. Whatever happens, and the member knows this quite well, it will be challenged in court. As far as we are concerned, it would have been preferable to have a bill based on the toughest jurisdiction, which is a Supreme Court decision, so that we could build a bill, which we could oppose or support, that would at least have a foundation based on the greatest, toughest and highest court of this country, the Supreme Court of Canada.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague started out by saying that often the problem with this debate is that motives are being impugned. Unfortunately, I am going to have to come to his defence because the member for Winnipeg North impugned his motives.

My colleague from the NDP, the great musician, made an excellent point earlier. The government will take first nations to court and will take veterans to court, but with a life and death situation, it will not deal with that in the Supreme Court of Canada. How does my colleague feel about that?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I feel very uncomfortable.

My colleague raised first nations, saying the government is ready to take them to the Supreme Court. First nations leaders said that they are concerned about the bill, as did the Canadian Psychiatric Association. There is no link there with the Conservative Party of Canada. No, it is Canadian society who has these concerns.

More than that, as human beings, we can change our minds. A friend of mine, who was a strong supporter of the medical assistance in dying policy, changed his mind. Why? Because his father was suffering two years ago and he had to fight with him about it. He said that he was a strong supporter of assisted dying, but not anymore because he lived through it with his father. This is what he told me.

As I said, there is no right or wrong decision and no right or wrong vote. There are just votes and decisions based on what we feel comfortable with.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to again speak to the bill. There were a lot of things that I wanted to say the first time around at report stage that I could not share because we ran out of time, but hopefully I will be able to conclude my remarks today.

I am splitting my time with the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke in the House earlier today and talked about how Bill C-7 is moving our country from a regime of assisted death to a regime of assisted suicide. We presently have in place former Bill C-14, which was brought in as a response to the Carter decision. That bill recognized the fact that the Supreme Court said that medically assisted death was a right but needed to be surrounded by guardrails, by safeguards that would ensure that the most vulnerable in Canada do not end up dying when they have an opportunity to live a productive life.

The Carter decision resulted in legislation that imposed a requirement that death needed to be reasonably foreseeable. The legislation before us eliminates that and a whole bunch of other safeguards that the original legislation was intended to keep in place.

Why are we at this place in the first place? Members in the House know that a lower court from Quebec, one single judge, ruled in the Truchon case that the reasonable foreseeability aspect of Bill C-14 violated the Charter of Rights. It was unconstitutional. This is a lower court from Quebec, one single judge, making a life and death decision for Canadians across the country.

One would expect, from a Liberal government that takes veterans to court and takes first nations to the Supreme Court of Canada, that this life and death decision would be appealed. The Truchon case would be appealed through to the Supreme Court so that we could have the Supreme Court, which articulated the Carter decision, comment on whether reasonable foreseeability was in fact constitutional.

Instead the Liberal government said, no, it was not going to appeal and in fact it would simply respond to the Truchon case and do exactly as that single judge of a lower court asked it to do. The Liberals eliminated reasonable foreseeability from Canada's medical assistance in dying regime. That is why we are here.

Members may recall, when C-14 first came forward, when the Carter decision had to be responded to, that parliamentarians noted the fact that this represented the crest of a steep, slippery slope toward making assisted suicide available to a broader and broader group of vulnerable Canadians. That was the concern that we expressed at the time and, quite frankly, some people mocked us. They said we were fearmongering. They pooh-poohed our concerns. Today, here we are and our concerns have been borne out.

Last time I did not get a chance to read into the record a letter from a doctor in my community of Abbotsford, Dr. James Warkentin, who expressed his concerns about the legislation. He says, “I appreciate your invitation to write to you regarding C-7. As a family physician, the decriminalization of medical assistance in dying in 2016 struck me at my core. How could killing someone one day cost me my licence and send me to jail, and the next day be expected of me to provide? Furthermore, how could our most vulnerable be protected from the pressure to end their life one day and then have state-sanctioned avenues the next?” He went on to reference the six reasons why over 1,000 Canadian physicians have signed a letter opposing Bill C-7.

In a moment I am going to read that letter into the record, because I believe those judges would appreciate having that letter on the record so it is very clear that many medical professionals across the country oppose Bill C-7, which would remove many of the safeguards, the guardrails, the protections for the vulnerable which were originally intended under the Carter decision.

The letter begins like this:

This bill, expanding “medical assistance in dying” (MAiD) to virtually everyone who is sick and suffering in Canada, will, if passed in its current form, make our country the world leader in administering death.

As medical doctors, we feel compelled to voice our dismay at how individuals who have little lived experience of the realities involved in the everyday practice of medicine suddenly and fundamentally changed the nature of medicine by decriminalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

As a side note, when they refer to “individuals who have little lived experience of the realities involved in the everyday practice of medicine”, they are referring to us, the parliamentarians in the House. It goes on:

Unfortunately, our patients are the ones who suffer the most from the consequences of this ill-devised scheme. The shock of a sudden illness, or an accident resulting in disability, can lead patients into feelings of anger, depression, and guilt for requiring care - emotions that, with proper support and attention, can resolve over time. The care and encouragement shown by physicians may be the most powerful force in overcoming despair and providing hope. Unfortunately, patients can no longer unconditionally trust their medical professional to advocate for their life when they are at their weakest and most vulnerable. Suddenly, a lethal injection becomes part of a repertoire of interventions offered to end their pain and suffering.

Bill C-7 would allow those who are not dying to end their lives by a lethal injection at the hands of a doctor or nurse practitioner. Shockingly, most of the safeguards that Parliament deemed necessary in 2016 to protect the lives of vulnerable individuals from a wrongful death are being removed. Under the new bill, an individual whose natural death is considered to be “reasonably foreseeable” could be diagnosed, assessed and euthanized all in one day. We are very concerned that removing the 10- day reflection period and other safeguards will lead to an increase in coerced or tragically unconsidered deaths.

The reckless removal of safeguards previously deemed essential will place desperately vulnerable patients directly in harm’s way and may cost them their very lives....

Our profession has been coerced into facilitating suicide rather than preventing it, for ever-increasing numbers of citizens. We watch in utter dismay and horror at how the nature of our medical profession has been so quickly destroyed by the creation of misguided laws.

That is an excerpt from a letter from over 1,000 physicians in Canada. It does go on, but I do not have time to complete it.

That is the perspective coming from our medical profession across the country and it is the disability groups, medical professionals, faith groups, palliative care advocates and first nations that are all calling for more caution before expanding assisted suicide, yet the government has refused to listen to those concerns.

At the committee, our Conservative opposition members brought forward numerous amendments that would have addressed some of the failings of the legislation, that would have reinstated the protections for which the vulnerable within our country have called. Seventy-two disability groups oppose this legislation. They want more protections, yet they are not there.

I encourage my colleagues across the way to please give this legislation more time. Give us an opportunity to get this right.

[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, whether it was the Supreme Court of Canada five years ago in the Carter decision, or the Superior Court decision in the province of Quebec or parliamentarians in this or previous sessions debating this for hundreds, if not thousands, of hours via committees or the chamber at second or third reading stages and so much more, this issue has been debated in a very passionate way for many years. Let there be no doubt that every life is of equal value. I believe that Canadian society wants this legislation passed.

When the Conservatives were in committee, they proposed amendments and had those amendments passed. I assumed they would agree to pass this legislation. It was not just the Liberal Party agreeing, other political parties in the House also agreed.

Could the member provide his thoughts on that issue?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member has suggested that the contents of Bill C-7 have been debated for years and years. The legislation was just brought forward by the Liberal government. The issues of expanding medical assistance in dying to effectively become assisted suicide need fulsome debate, because it is an issue of life and death.

Unfortunately, the member does not realize that. He does not understand how critical it is that the 72 disability groups across Canada fear the legislation will put their members at risk. The most vulnerable in our society, whether it is the poor, children or those with mental health issues, all feel vulnerable under the legislation. Why is that and why is the Liberal government not listening to those concerns?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to be part of a party that allows its members to vote with their conscience when it comes to bills like this. We have stressed that this is not a partisan issue. From what we heard from Canadians across the country, this impacts them at their core. I would like some feedback from the member on the concept of being able to vote our conscience.

I grieve for people across the floor and around me who I do not think have that freedom. That is something Canadians absolutely look for in their Parliament, the realization of our responsibility in these circumstances to vote our conscience.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am safe in saying that the Conservative Party is the only party in the House that takes free votes seriously, that regularly provides its MPs the avenue of saying yes or no to legislation, especially on issues of conscience.

I would extend that to protections that should be available to physicians and medical practitioners across Canada to not to be involved in any way in facilitating assisted death or assisted suicide. Across our country physicians are being told it is part of their obligations as physicians to refer people to another physician if they themselves will not counsel on the issue of medical assistance in dying. This is not about a country that respects freedoms and conscience rights.

We need to step into that gap, protect physicians from having to do something against their conscience in the same way the Conservative leader provides us as parliamentarians a free vote on any matters of conscience.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been a little disappointed at the tenor of the debate recently regarding MAID. I am hopeful we can carry this back to the passionate, but compassionate, debate we had earlier.

This is a matter of conscience and I am certainly very proud to be part of a party that has given me, as the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, the freedom to decide how I would like to vote on this bill.

When we look at the legislation, after extensive consultation with folks inside and outside of my riding, a number of issues have occurred. The challenging part for me is that despite many advocates for persons with disabilities raising the alarm bells, much media attention on this and how they might feel, we really have not seen any amendments or changes to this legislation.

I would say this earnestly and with openness for my friends across the aisle. Are we so arrogant that we believe this language is absolutely perfect and completely beyond improvement? The member for Papineau used to say a number of times that there was always room to be better and there was always the opportunity to be better. In response to that, with all kindness and respect, this bill can be better and there are opportunities to do that.

Some legislation the government has put in during this last year alone has failed. The rent subsidy program did not go off as well as the government had hoped. All reasonable observers, and even members on the other side, would acknowledge that. That is why they had to relaunch the program. The LEEFF program is also not working up to capacity and no doubt will have to be redone. We have seen those challenges.

The difficulty with this legislation is that there is no ability to redo it. This is a life or death matter. If we lose members of our most vulnerable communities due to the legislation, we cannot come back. There is no redo of this. I am perfectly aware, as a lawyer, of the obligation the court has put in front of us from the Truchon decision to get this legislation revised. However, there are multiple devices, as our leader spoke about, to get that time extended.

In all respect and fairness, any reasonable, objective observer would say that it was the government that prorogued Parliament for an additional six weeks. We would have had the time to pass this on time.

I will get into my remarks, but let us keep the tenor of this debate how it is meant to be and how our constituents want it to be. They want a deep discussion of the important issues of passion, the very reason our Parliament exists and the very reason this reasonable debate is what makes Canada, in my opinion, such a great country.

To get into the substance of my speech, those who support Bill C-7 do not want anyone to suffer. Those who do not support it do not want anyone to suffer either. It is important to begin this controversial debate by recognizing that both sides, regardless of how different their beliefs are, are passionate for the right reasons. As with any legislation that will have a dramatic impact on people's lives, the discussion is very important.

Medical assistance in dying is a relatively new topic. Canada is one of the few countries that has legalized it so far, and as such, we much proceed in this new territory with the utmost caution. As our members have spoken about, we need the safeguards. This is not just the members of the Conservative Party mentioning this. Some of our most noted jurists in Canadian history have brought this up, jurists from all sides of the political spectrum who have called for and demanded that there be safeguards. As we say, and it is only common sense, this is a matter of life and death. While we should be guaranteeing a death with dignity, I strongly believe we should first guarantee a dignified end of life.

In order to do this, in order to make sure that people are choosing medical assistance in dying for the right reason, I believe that we need to have a conversation around the state of palliative care in our country. Unfortunately, the state of palliative care in our country is less than favourable. While medical assistance in dying is currently considered an essential service, palliative care is not. This is an issue that should be gravely concerning to everyone in this House and across our country.

Palliative care is a type of health care for patients and families facing life-limiting illnesses. It helps patients to achieve the best possible quality of life right up to the end of one's life. I know, and I am sure that many members share this, I have had some of the most important conversations of my life with loved ones and friends at or near the end of their life. These moments provide so much quality to those who carry forward and provide so much advice that I carry forward with me to this very day.

Where it is possible to retain a reasonable quality of life, we as a society have a sacrosanct obligation to make sure that people are taken care of, so that, if they do decide on medical assistance in dying, they have done so of their own free will and not because of a poor quality of life that could have been avoided.

Quality palliative care focuses on the concerns of patients and families, and works to support patients through both physical and mental symptoms of serious illness. This may include everything from helping to manage a patient's pain and symptoms to keeping them comfortable in their home for as long as possible.

Unfortunately, while 75% of Canadians would prefer to have their last moments at home, only about 15% have access to palliative home care and 60% die, instead of being surrounded in the homes that some of them have grown up in, in cold, stark hospitals.

Many physicians have raised the concern, because the majority of Canadians do not have access to high-quality palliative care. It is possible that many people, or at least some people, may be choosing MAID because they do not feel there are other options. Amongst the concerns are those laid out by Dr. Stephanie Kafie, a family physician in Niagara Falls with a focus on caring for the elderly.

She has said that something that has not been considered in the rush of passing this bill is the state of palliative care. It is not considered an essential service, however, MAID is. In her experience, many requests for MAID reflected a need for palliative care. Rushing misguided laws regarding the medical profession has led to an erosion of their profession and started significant damage to doctor-patient relations. Their hands are tied. They are not consulted on the drastic changes that are being made.

As Dr. Kafie notes, the importance of consulting with doctors in the creation of legislation is so crucial. As is so often is the case with parliamentarians, not enough people working on the legislation have any experience in the field itself.

Dr. Drijber, a palliative care physician, has spoken out on this issue, stating that this legislation seems to ignore the importance of the dignity that comes with palliative care, the importance of those final moments for both the living and those who will pass on. He has gone so far as to say that it seems the government has not fully consulted with experts or people who work in the field to help guide them through their decision-making process.

When we come to a conclusion here, in all earnesty and openness, I am reaching out to the other side. They know that there are people in their constituencies who will have differing opinions from them, as do I. We need to make sure that all voices are heard. Are we so arrogant as parliamentarians to think we should not change the legislation, that we cannot, as the member for Papineau has said, always do better?

[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, where I agree wholeheartedly with the member is in regard to the issue of palliative care, home care services or long-term care services.

Even though these are provincially administered, the national government does have a role to play. I have always believed that. It goes beyond just transferring cash. We have to ensure there are some standards, that there are opportunities for individuals to be able to have those types of services, in particular, palliative care. We have too many palliative care patients passing in hospital hallways and rooms versus in a proper palliative care facility or in a home.

Could my friend provide his thoughts in terms of to what degree he would like to see the national government take a more proactive approach in working with other governments, and possibly what role he believes Ottawa should be playing in ensuring that there is more consistency across Canada when it comes to these types of services, in particular, palliative care?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that well-thought-out and reasonable question. I understand completely that the member's intentions are nothing but the best to make sure that our seniors and those who are at the end of their life have the best possible care.

It is also important to enable innovation and provincial innovation, so that we can see that for Quebec or Ontario, and we are able to get those best practices across the various provinces. It is also critical that we manage our finances well, so that the federal government is in a position to enable proper funding of health care transfers, not as the transfers were slashed under the Chrétien government.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's background is not a lie. He is a lawyer.

There were concerns expressed in 2016 with the legislation then, about the potential for judicial creep and now we are experiencing some of that. Why would the decision, then, not be appealed to the Supreme Court where the court could actually uphold some of the guardrails and safeguards that it put in place? I am wondering if my hon. colleague would have a comment on that.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, truly, we have some of the most brilliant jurists in all the world in Canada, in our upper courts, in the Supreme Court, and in our lower courts as well, so why we would not give them the opportunity to put their learned intelligence and wisdom to this legislation I just do not understand.

As we have seen, our justices have much to contribute to this debate. Whether it be Justice McLachlin or Justice Cory or Justice Sopinka, they have all offered so much to this debate and to the discussion and, in many ways, they define the very terms of this conversation.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always like listening to my colleagues and I especially like listening to my friend from Winnipeg North because he really focuses the discussion so clearly. He said that he thinks it is really important to learn lessons about palliative care and how the federal government could play a role. Well, he stood in the House with his Prime Minister when we brought forward a national palliative care strategy and the Liberals voted for it.

I raised it during the first round of discussions on the end-of-life bill and asked why we do not have a palliative care strategy.

The Liberals said, “Oh well, we will but we have to respond to the Supreme Court, we have to do this first”.

Therefore, here we are. We have another end-of-life bill and we have the Liberals saying, “Can anyone can tell us how we could do a palliative care strategy? It is such a good idea, maybe we could start some kind of conversation.” We have been through this. We voted on it. We told the Canadian people it would happen and the Liberals did nothing. How long is it going to take?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I might have difficulty answering that question. I certainly enjoy the member. I must say he is one of my favourite parliamentarians with his ability to ask questions.

In response to that question, the time for action is now. I would concur that, unfortunately, the current government does have some challenges sometimes with the follow-through of its great words, as the member's leader would say.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

Here we are on December 8, 2020, only 10 days away from a deadline imposed on Parliament by the Quebec Superior Court from the Truchon decision. The Liberal side of the House is suggesting that perhaps it is the fault of members of the Conservative Party for delaying progress on this very important topic. I take exception to that.

How did we come to this point in the first place? Our leader spoke this morning and he raised this topic, and so I am just going to repeat some of what he said. First of all, there was the failure of the current Attorney General to appeal this decision of the Quebec Superior Court. It is a lower court. In my opinion it was a wrong decision, and it should have been appealed, first of all, to the Quebec Court of Appeal. We would have had the benefit of the wisdom of that bench. Subsequently it should have been appealed, like all important constitutional issues, at the Supreme Court of Canada. I have the deepest respect for the Supreme Court of Canada and the constitutional expertise and scholarship that has come out of that court. The Attorney General has missed that opportunity to be able to engage the Supreme Court of Canada in the discussion on this very important topic.

Parliament, as our leader said, is the top court of the land. We are sovereign. We can make and unmake any laws that we want, provided that they are within the four walls of the Constitution of this country. That is the dialogue that we should have had with the Supreme Court of Canada. That, sadly, will not be happening on this topic.

The second very important point is prorogation. We had been making good progress on Bill C-7. We were talking about this back in February and March already. Prorogation happened, and the debate had to go right back to square one. How is that our fault? Why did the Liberal government decide on prorogation? It was not for any good policy considerations. It was strictly for political considerations, so we are not going to wear that. The Liberal government is going to wear that.

Another point that I would like to raise is that if Bill C-7 reacted in the narrow way that the Truchon decision required, this debate would be much shorter and faster, but the government has decided to take the opportunity to expand the debate. The Liberals are suggesting that we are disrespecting the Truchon decision and the Quebec Superior Court by raising these issues. We are not the ones who are raising the additional issues; it is the government in its Bill C-7 that is doing so. If Bill C-7 was just about the Truchon decision, then it would not be talking about removing the 10-day reflection period. The “First Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada, 2019”, just recently published by Health Canada, has told us that, of the 7,336 MAID applications in 2019, 236 of the applicants changed their minds during the 10-day reflection period. Obviously, that 10-day reflection is there for a purpose. It is serving that purpose very well. Why would we be removing that?

Furthermore, Bill C-7 has introduced the concept of advance directives and, consequently, the elimination of contemporaneous consent by the person who is asking for the medical assistance in dying. That would be shifting the final decision away from the person receiving medical assistance in dying to the person who would now be going to apply it. We are no further ahead. I do not think that is an improvement.

Then, there is the other requirement, removing the second witness. What is that about? Why is that so important? There are so many legal documents that require two witnesses, wills for example, to make sure that there is not coercion on the part of people who might benefit. In the case of wills, the beneficiaries of the will might benefit. It is a long-standing legal principle that two witnesses be required. These changes are significant, and disability groups across the country have told us so loudly and clearly.

Of the many groups that appeared before the committee hearings, not one of the disability groups was in favour of Bill C-7 and the removal of these protections. That is why we are at an impasse in this eleventh hour.

Mr. Neil Belanger, executive director of the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, commented on a newly released document entitled “In Plain Sight”, commissioned by British Columbia's minister of health, the Hon. Adrian Dix, to review indigenous-specific racism in British Columbia's health care system. Although it is a review of B.C.'s health care system, the principles in it would apply right across Canada. Mr. Belanger and the group that he represents are concerned about the proposed removal of safeguards. He said:

There is no debating the systemic racism and discrimination within Canada’s health systems, and the experiences and deaths of Indigenous peoples when seeking care. We all would be remiss to believe that this somehow would not permeate into MAID.

He went on to say in his testimony before the Senate committee that:

...the Government of Canada has failed to engage the Indigenous peoples of Canada living with disabilities, Elders, and Indigenous Leadership in relation to MAID on any tangible level. This lack of engagement is contrary to the government’s stated commitment to reconciliation, UNDRIP, and the CRPD.

Other disability groups are saying the same, yet this government is refusing to listen. Mr. Belanger takes this a step further. He and the organization for which he speaks advocate sticking with the end-of-life criteria already in place after the Carter decision and after Bill C-14, which was the well-considered opinion of Parliament just four and a half years ago.

Recently, when Mr. Belanger's organization presented to the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs on Bill C-7, he said that:

[BCANDS]...stands with our sister disability organizations and countless others across Canada in calling for the removal of Track 2 in the proposal changes to Bill C-7, and limiting access to MAID to the end of life criteria...

Track 2 is medical assistance for those people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable.

People may state the obvious: that this is all water under the bridge and that the Truchon decision said that it is unconstitutional. To go back to my original comments, that decision should have been appealed, and it was not. I am going to have to tell Mr. Belanger that the debate has been had already. This government has sadly treated as a settled constitutional principle that it is unconstitutional for any law of this country to refuse medical assistance in dying to those who meet all the other criteria, but are not dying.

This is a fundamental shift that was not debated. This government has stated on many occasions that it had broad consultations and 300,000 people responded, but the one question it never asked was if people agreed that medical assistance in dying should be given to those whose death was not reasonably foreseeable. The fundamental question was never asked. That is not a true consultation, in my opinion. It is a pretext for advancing a legislative agenda that had been preconceived. It has been said on several occasions in the House during this debate that the current Attorney General voted against Bill C-14 four years ago because it did not address that, and did not expand MAID to that point. This is the current Attorney General imposing his will on Parliament and forestalling that very important debate.

The first report by Health Canada on the state of medical assistance in dying stated that roughly 2% of Canadians in 2019 used medical assistance to die. That is the average across the country, but it is much lower in some provinces. It is the average in Quebec and far above the average in British Columbia.

Why is that? Is it because there are more sick people or old people—

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

The member will have to complete that thought during questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[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 believe the bill we are debating reflects a great deal of effort on the part of the Supreme Court of Canada and its decision five years ago, the Superior Court of Quebec, tens of thousands of Canadians and hundreds of hours of debate inside and outside the chamber in the form of standing committees and so forth. From what I understand, it has the support of the New Democrats, the Green Party, the Bloc and the Liberals. We know it is not an issue of process, and I would counter any false argument presented by the Conservatives that it is. Rather, the Conservatives do not want this bill to come to a vote because they believe it should have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Would the members opposite be transparent with Canadians and make it very clear that this is the real reason why they are not supporting the legislation?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, the real reason we are not supporting the legislation is because it does not provide adequate protection for the disabled. It is not just members from the Conservative Party stating that, but many disability groups that have come to committee to represent the opinions of their members. This is a broad discussion across all of Canada.

Why is the Liberal government not listening to those real concerns? We have offered reasonable solutions and amendments. The Liberals are turning all of them down. It seems they have predetermined what the outcome will be. They are not listening to the debate.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues for the very thoughtful and compassionate speeches and the different perspectives I have heard. One issue I have not heard anybody speak about today is that Bill C-7 creates a waiver of final consent for those already assessed and approved for assistance who fear the loss of competence before their chosen date. This is colloquially referred to as the “Audrey Parker amendment”.

Audrey Parker was diagnosed with stage four breast cancer that had metastasized to her bones and caused a tumour to grow on her brain. She spent the last weeks of her life raising awareness about these challenges. She was worried she would lose competence and be unable to give her final agreement because of the influence of the cancer on her brain, and she ended her life prematurely. I do not think that is what anybody wants. We want people to live their full lives. We do not want anybody exercising their right to MAID before they would otherwise want to, because of a legal requirement.

Does my hon. colleague have any comments on that part of the bill?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have to admit that the Audrey Parker argument is very compelling. Nobody wants Canadians to die earlier than they should.

I believe the best argument against the Audrey Parker principle, as it is sometimes referred to, is that last year alone, and we have hard evidence of this, 263 people changed their minds during that 10-day waiting period. I recognize that even under Bill C-7 there is an opportunity for people to change their minds if they are still cognizant. If not, then somebody else makes the decision. Mrs. Parker probably would have signed that document, but ultimately it is the doctor who has to make the final decision as to whether or not to administer the lethal injection. That doctor might wonder if she is one of the 263 people who would change their minds. Why is it the doctor's decision?

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Official Languages)]

Madam Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the debate on Bill C-7, having myself been a member of the joint committee behind Bill C-14.

I heard my colleague say that he has the utmost respect for the Supreme Court of Canada. I would remind him that we cannot talk about Bill C-7 without first talking about Bill C-14, since Bill C-7 is the logical and natural continuation of Bill C-14. On top of that, the Supreme Court of Canada, in which my colleague has great confidence, issued a unanimous ruling in Carter.

Is it not entirely reasonable to keep to the Carter decision, for example, since the Truchon decision addresses in some ways the gaps in Bill C-14, to accept that Bill C-7 finally closes the loop of the Carter case and Bill C-14?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, that question gives me an opportunity to distinguish between the Carter and the Truchon decisions. I have the greatest respect for the Supreme Court of Canada. There is great scholarship coming out of there.

The Carter decision underlined the importance of a scrupulous regime of protection and safeguards for the disabled. Truchon did not undermine that, so there is no contradiction there. It is this Parliament that is contradicting Carter.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, earlier this morning, the leader of the official opposition began today's debate with a strong speech about the problems with Bill C-7 and how the government has been handling it. He started by saying that it could be the most important bill before this Parliament, regardless of how long it actually lasts. After all, we are discussing a matter of life and death, and the decision we make here will make all the difference for countless Canadians.

These are people who will be making their own choices, which will directly impact their own lives, their legacies, their loved ones and their caregivers. It is a choice they might not have expected to ever have to make, whether because of a sudden illness, the unrequested suggestion of assisted suicide or some other reason. Anything could happen, which is why we have to maximize the protection and safeguards there will be for each person involved, especially for those who are most at risk of abuse and neglect.

At this last stage of debate in the House of Commons, I want to focus on the choice, or in some cases the lack of choice, a person might face. Some argue we are seeking their best interests by expanding access to MAID, not only for the relief of suffering but also purely for the sake of free choice.

On the idea of choice, we have to remember this is not an ordinary decision. Someone's death, premature or otherwise, is literally a point of no return. The decision is final. With all the circumstances leading someone to consider the end of their life, it gets complicated very quickly.

To explain it from someone's lived experience, I will quote journalist Ben Mattlin, who suffers from spinal muscular atrophy. He wrote the following in the New York Times:

I’ve lived so close to death for so long that I know how thin and porous the border between coercion and free choice is, how easy it is for someone to inadvertently influence you to feel devalued and hopeless—to pressure you ever so slightly but decidedly into being “reasonable,” to unburdening others, to “letting go.”

Perhaps, as advocates contend, you can’t understand why anyone would push for assisted-suicide legislation until you’ve seen a loved one suffer. But you also can’t truly conceive of the many subtle forces—invariably well meaning, kindhearted, even gentle, yet as persuasive as a tsunami—that emerge when your physical autonomy is hopelessly compromised.

Despite Mattlin's significant physical disability, he is a father, a husband, an author and a journalist. He has a successful life and he knows what he wants. He is less vulnerable than others who lack the confidence and spark he has, who could easily be persuaded that assisted suicide was their best option.

The idea of this happening voluntarily is, in many subtle ways, the start of a slippery slope that leads to it happening less voluntarily, or involuntarily. The choice is not always so free, especially if real alternatives are lacking. One of the greatest fears a lot of people face in their lifetime is their own mortality, and in a lot of breadth that is what we are discussing here today.

When I talk about Bill C-7, when I talk about facing our own mortality, I often reflect on the experiences my wife and I have had, when grandparents and other loved ones within our family have passed away. We have spent countless hours at their sides, either in the hospital or in their care home. The time spent with one's family is so precious and valuable.

Within the last year, the health of my wife's grandma deteriorated. Her husband had passed away a few years prior, and she had been living in, I think, level 1 care for most of COVID. We were not allowed to go into the facility and had to stand outside the building. She had a nice corner unit with lots of windows, so we were able to observe her condition and speak to her through the window.

Over the course of time, we watched her state of mind and physical state deteriorate steadily and progressively. Her state degraded to the point that she could not lift her head when we came to the window to talk to her. She could not see who was there.

When the restrictions were lifted and one or two people were allowed into the unit, my wife was able to sit beside her grandma, hold her hand and tell her that she loved her. To see her state improve, and to be able to lift her spirits, was so powerful.

I think that as we are having this discussion on Bill C-7, we especially need to ensure that we value life and that we are giving people every option to live their lives. We should also have the opportunity to have our loved ones at our sides as we go through the final moments and face the ultimate end of our mortality, the end of our life.

We need to make sure that people have full supports as well. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I note that one of the biggest parts of Bill C-7 is the need for palliative care. I have talked at length previously about the need for it to make sure we are providing real choice and real options to people so they have all the options they need and, quite frankly, deserve.

The vast majority of people who are being considered under Bill C-7, or who will consider MAID, are in our senior population. When we look at the contributions they have made to our society, these are the people who built our country. These are the people who have provided us with the freedoms and opportunities we have. However, here we are discussing a bill, which we will be voting on in the near future, that basically signals to them that we do not value their lives and do not value the contributions they have made to this country. That is what the bill signals.

I know people will argue that this is not what the bill is doing, but sometimes it is not about what the bill directly does, but what it is going to do indirectly. The moment we signify to our country, to our citizens, that we inherently do not value and defend life to its fullest extent, we are sending the wrong message to people.

I realize that people who advocate for Bill C-7 and medical assistance in dying are doing it from a position of compassion. I will never question somebody who says that is the reason they are advocating for it. However, we also need to realize that part of a compassionate response to people who are at that point in their life—

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

I apologize, but the member will have two and a half minutes to finish his speech after Oral Questions and five minutes of questions and answers.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the third time and passed.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to pick up where I left off. I believe I was talking about compassion and how that is being shown to Canadians, in particular as it pertains to how we look after our senior and aging population.

Particularly in Saskatchewan, this is becoming an increasing problem. In 2015, StatsCan did a survey, and what it found out was that as we go forward, and I think it is in eight-year increments, our population is going to age about 4% to 5%, over and over, in that time frame. Again, our population is continuing to age.

We can look at our palliative care strategy and the infrastructure that exists, and see that we are at a deficit going forward. We are spending all this time in Parliament going over Bill C-7, as the government has decided to make its priority figuring out how it can reduce the criteria so that people could have expanded access to medical assistance in dying. This is basically why advocacy groups are saying that this legislation more or less amounts to assisted suicide. That is a message that we do not want to be portraying to Canadians, particularly as we look at many areas of the country that are under a suicide pandemic in its own right.

We need to be sure we are sending a clear and concise message to Canadians that we are focused on providing life-affirming care and life-affirming support. We do not want to give Canadians the impression that we have just kind of given up, and that instead of providing life, we are going to provide the option for death. I find that a very dark path for the government to be going down.

Again, we need to make sure we are sending the right message to Canadians, that we cherish all life, and our focus will solely be on the life and well-being of Canadians.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of palliative care and long-term care, and of ensuring, by making the statement every so often, as I do, that all life is of equal value. That is something I truly believe.

The legislation that we have before us today is a reflection of many hours of discussions and debates. Tens of thousands of Canadians provided input. The Superior Court of Quebec made a decision. It is reflective of other decisions that were made previously.

This legislation seems to have the support of the Bloc Québécois, the Green Party, the NDP and, obviously, the Liberal Party.

Could my friend just provide his thoughts in terms of the amount of dialogue that has taken place and the amount of support, at least from political entities in the House? Could he provide his thoughts on why he believes we should be moving forward with this legislation?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of support for maintaining some kind of a framework around Bill C-7. In particular, we want to see the framework for ensuring we save the protections in the legislation. Some of those protections have been removed.

The member also talked about how tens of thousands of people were consulted on this, but there is one group in particular that received zero consultation: disabled persons in Canada.

One of the primary objections that myself and numerous other people have is what it has to do for people with disabilities and what it is signalling to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion certainly coming from our side of the House about the need to do better when it comes to people with disabilities and how many people living with disabilities have reported being pushed toward euthanasia and even being called selfish when they choose not to pursue that option. That is why we put forward a reasonable amendment that euthanasia should be a conversation initiated by the patient, not pushed forward by somebody else.

One of the other points about the discussion on the disabilities is we hear people talking about new benefits and spending from government, but what we need to recognize as well is people with disabilities have a significant contribution to offer in terms of employment. That is why the member for Carleton put forward a great bill in the last Parliament that would have removed barriers to employment for people living with disabilities.

I wonder if the member could talk a bit more about how we can promote full inclusion across the board for people living with disabilities.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan makes a great point about why we need to affirm life in every individual. We need to stand up and defend the dignity of life for everybody. He hit on a great point about people with disabilities being able to contribute in the workforce. They are such an important part of the fabric of our communities.

In Swift Current, where I am, the Swift Current abilities group has such a fantastic group of people there. They do such great work in our community and have such an uplifting presence in our community. What this bill signals to them is that their contributions to our society are not as meaningful. We need to make sure we are sending the right message across.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we heard questions in question period today that were really attacking some people who took issue with this bill. I think it was a partisan political attack that really has no place in a conversation around some of the most important decisions around life and death.

I would like my hon. colleague to expand on some of the reasons the Conservatives put forward their reasonable amendments. It has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with some fundamental beliefs we and the people we are representing on this side have, including the people in the disability communities and people throughout different sectors who are having trouble with Bill C-7. It has nothing to do with politics, but fundamental beliefs people hold very dear, and there should not be any room in this discussion for partisan politics.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. The assertion made in QP that there are regular, everyday Canadians who are considered fanatics for their opposition to this bill is absolutely ridiculous.

We have to stay focused on what we are doing for Canadians. We have to focus solely on doing what is best for Canadians, and people are adamant we need to stand up and defend dignity in life.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Yorkton—Melville.

Dr. Heidi Janz, the committee chair of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, expressed her alarm at the breakneck speed at which the finance committee was operating. She called on members of the committee to extend public consultations on the legislation. I agree with her. We are moving way too quickly on this issue.

One of my constituents told me back in February that we need to slow this down. We also have to remember that we are here because of the WE scandal and the prorogation. That took away over a month of time we could have been debating this issue in the House. That has caused this to become a panic and there is a supposed rush to get this done.

I thought it important to repeat a few things. Sometimes Canadians, as they watch these debates, may get confused as we talk about things. I wanted to summarize a couple of quick points.

We are here because of the Truchon case from the Quebec Superior Court. This talks about the section in the current law that said death must be reasonably foreseeable. It struck it down and said it needed to be changed. That was the start of this particular bill.

The government chose to not appeal that, which is unusual. Normally, when a lower court makes a ruling against a government bill, especially one that is significant, the government of the day appeals, in this case, to the Quebec Court of Appeal and ultimately the Supreme Court. The government, for whatever reason, decided not to appeal it. Because of that, this bill will now be open to those who are chronically ill and chronically disabled.

They specifically excluded people with mental illness as opposed to excluding, say, people who are paraplegics. To me, this is arbitrary: it is picking winners and losers, and it is certainly going to make this legislation, if it passes, open to a charter challenge.

I also want to mention safeguards that have been removed in this legislation, such as the 10-day reflection period. As one of my colleagues mentioned this morning, since the MAID legislation has been in place, 263 Canadians who chose to pursue MAID changed their minds within the 10-day reflection period and did not pursue it. That is 263 Canadian lives that were saved because of the 10-day reflection period. That reflection period is gone, and future Canadians who might make that choice will not be saved if this goes through.

Another safeguard that has been removed is final consent. One can now give advance consent for this procedure. This is a problem for me, because we do not know, when the time comes, if the person wants to go through with this procedure because consent is not required anymore.

The other thing is that the current legislation requires two witnesses to agree that this makes sense for the individual. That is now down to one witness. There is no need for witnesses to agree. Just one person has to say it.

I also want to mention the new 90-day waiting period safeguard that has been added for those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable. I do not think that 90 days is long enough.

For example, if someone has a spinal cord injury, that injury may not even have begun to recover within 90 days. In Ontario, if someone needs access to specialized long-term care, it takes on average 126 days to get it. If someone needs a specialized pain clinic, the median time to get that is five and a half months. Even something as simple as applying for a CPP disability benefit takes 120 days. All of those are far longer than 90 days. In my opinion, 90 days is too short for a waiting period.

The disability community has been very vocal since this has come out. I want to mention a few quotes. The first is from Inclusion Canada. It said, “By providing MAID beyond end of life circumstances to Canadians with disabilities, Canada would signal that these Canadians are expendable and threaten their lives, dignity and belonging.”

Canadian Physicians for Life stated, “This Bill prejudices marginalized patients to the incidental effects of a regime that endorses death as an appropriate response to non-life-threatening illness and disability. Furthermore, this Bill not only creates an unavoidable risk that some individuals could actually be euthanized against their true wishes, it increases that risk by removing key safeguards that ensure such requests are valid in the first place.”

The Christian Legal Fellowship said, “The risks created by this Bill—risks that will have a devastating impact on marginalized Canadians—are grossly disproportionate to the benefits it attempts to confer on those seeking more expedient access to MAID.”

The Catholic Bishops of Canada “remain steadfastly opposed to Bill C-7”.

Just to show that I am not completely one-sided on this, I will read something from the Canadian Unitarian Council, which is in favour of MAID. It said that:

During this time of the pandemic, our health care systems are burdened and stretched. We urge the government to find ways to provide the resources needed to make sure that those who want to access medical assistance in dying are able to do so, especially for those living in remote and under-resourced communities.

It sounds an awful lot like this is a solution to an overburdened medical system. Fifty-plus religious leaders in Canada penned an article, and I will read a brief portion of that. It says:

With our world-renowned health care system now endorsing euthanasia as a “solution” to human suffering, we will be undermining the creativity and resolve that is needed to confront some of the most complex cases of care. We are, in effect, imposing the intentional taking of human life as a solution to human suffering.... How precipitous a fall we have made into a moral abyss. This is not what we, as Canadians, have in mind when thinking of ourselves as a caring, compassionate and inclusive society. Instead, we must embrace those who suffer, and offer exceptional care to those who are confronting illness and death.

I also received a lot of correspondence from people in my riding, and I want to read some of those.

Cecile Goodmanson wrote:

Bill C-7 is a horrible law and I am asking you to oppose it. It is basically a suicide pact....Under Bill C-7, we as a society are saying that it is okay to kill sick, disabled, lonely and mentally ill people. If those people feel like life is not worth living, we should go along with that lie and dispense with them post-haste.... This is ridiculous. I thought we were not supposed to discriminate against the disabled, the elderly and those who are sick or mentally ill.

Becky Thomas wrote:

The new Liberal government Bill C-7 to expand assisted suicide and euthanasia is truly horrifying. It would allow people who are not even dying to be able to demand that a doctor help kill them. Anyone will be able to demand the state and taxpayer participation in their execution provided they claim they have intolerable psychological suffering or physical suffering, terms that are very broad and open to every interpretation one could imagine.... Please speak out against this push.

Pat and Donna Robol wrote this to the justice minister, and I am not sure that he read it so I will read it so that he can hear it. They wrote:

As someone opposed to physician-assisted suicide, we did complete the questionnaire; however, found the online survey very difficult to complete, because it was formed on a basis of presupposed agreement with euthanasia and assisted suicide. It did not give those of us opposed a proper voice. I heard over the course of a couple of weeks of many who, in conscience, felt they could not participate in such a survey for that very reason. This survey was flawed in so many ways, including the time allotted and the assumption everyone had access to computers.

David Dombrowski wrote:

I am very concerned that the Liberal government is not doing the promised five-year review of their Liberal euthanasia law but instead liberalizing it well beyond the court ruling that prompted the government's response.... This government has not charged anyone or even decided to investigate any of the several publicized cases of abuse under the existing euthanasia law, and now it proposes to remove many of those existing safeguards.

Cheryl Fraess wrote:

The Government of Canada prides itself on championing inclusion and accessibility. With its current position on the reintroduction of MAID, the government reminds us that it has a glaring blind spot when it comes to its vision of a more inclusive Canada. This is not simply an unfortunate omission. It is a betrayal of the foundational principles of inclusion, one that puts the lives of people with disability at risk.

As I conclude, I want to mention a few men who have gone before me.

My Uncle George was born around 1940. He had Down syndrome. He was my father's next oldest brother. My father would say that he did not even know that his brother had Down syndrome until my father was eight or nine years old. My Uncle George died naturally at age 53. My Uncle Ken suffered a horrific farm accident when he was four years old and became a paraplegic. His life was very difficult in those days, especially for his parents in dealing with a newly paraplegic son, but he persevered. He had a successful career with the provincial government, and became a very senior bureaucrat. I looked up to him, and he was by far my favourite uncle. He died of cancer in his fifties. I am who I am today, in part, because of these two men. I stand on the shoulders of these two men. Without words, they taught me tolerance, acceptance and love, and I am here today, in part, because of those two men.

Let us not create a Canada where men like Uncle George and Uncle Ken are erased from existence. Let us slow this down.

[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, it is important that we recognize that there is a clock ticking on this piece of legislation. The Bloc raised this issue in question period today and other people from other parties have raised it, in terms of seeing it passed.

The Conservatives should not try to give the false impression that it is about the process, or that it would cause a delay in passing it. If the Conservative Party is to be completely transparent, it does not support the legislation because it believes that the decision should have been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is why it does not support the legislation.

I wonder if my colleague from across the way would acknowledge that this is, in fact, the case.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, perhaps the parliamentary secretary needs a bit of information. The government seems extremely stuck and confused as to what to do. There are many options available to it.

Number one, it could ask the Quebec superior court for an extension, as it already did. I am sure it could do it again.

Second, the government could appeal. That is commonly done and is necessary in a case where the law that is being changed has such profound impact on the country.

There are many tools the government could use if it chose to. It is just choosing not to.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for referencing the human side of this. He mentioned his two uncles, both of whom had serious disabilities, yet lived productive, satisfying lives. He mentioned that those uncles taught him tolerance, which is sometimes in short supply here in the House as we heard today during question period, where those who opposed the expansion of medically assisted suicide were being referred to as religious fanatics.

I would be interested to hear the member's views on whether that is the appropriate way for MPs to characterize those of us who have serious substantive reservations about this legislation.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely inappropriate. There are 338 of us in the House. We certainly all do not agree on everything. We come from different walks of life and different faith backgrounds. We all have different beliefs, different lived experiences and different families. We are different in every way.

That is what the strength of the House is. We come together with all of those differences and we make good laws by bringing our unique experiences to the House.

It is very important for our colleagues in the House to bring their lived experiences here and share them with everybody. Together, we make good laws.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, listening to the member for Winnipeg North sounded like it has been repeating a tactic of using a conspiracy theory. I have also heard a conspiracy theory about the Liberal Party of Canada on the MAID strategy, which makes it sound like they want to withdraw palliative care so that they can save money by pushing for more MAID. I do not believe the Liberal Party of Canada would sink so low.

I would like to ask my colleague to comment on that, please.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, conspiracy theories are always an interesting and strange place to go, but the member raised something that I wanted to mention, and that is palliative care. My mother-in-law experienced an end-of-life situation in palliative care and it was very important to my family to have that ability. Unfortunately, 70% of Canadians do not have access to palliative care and that is, in part, driving the demand for MAID.

It is important that we as a country and the government come up with a strategy and plan to develop proper and improved palliative care in the country. That will go a long way to helping seniors and those in end-of-life situations.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I consider it an honour to speak for a third time on Bill C-7 as the bill would dramatically expand access to assisted death in our country.

I rise again to represent the thousands of voices across the country who feel that the bill puts them in crosshairs. I am referring to vulnerable Canadians living with disabilities and disabling conditions who believe they have been targeted. They have told us that this legislation singles them out by providing them with a special path to assisted death. They want us in this place to know their lives matter. This is the last opportunity for members of the House to legislate Bill C-7 to ensure their best interests are considered.

I want to use my time today to reiterate what has been a common theme throughout my interventions on Bill C-7. The Liberals are moving to impose sweeping consequential legislation despite what they have been clearly told by Parliament and Canadians. Yes, they have even ignored their own legislation.

The government should not have moved to implement the bill before the parliamentary review of Bill C-14, which was slated to take place before the end of June next year. It should have done that first. We do not yet have a clear enough picture of the impact a Canada-wide MAID regime has had on our country. Five years is not remotely enough time to take stock of trends, abuse and the impact of MAID on charter-protected conscience rights.

I remember the words of the former member for Winnipeg Centre, Robert-Falcon Ouellette, during debate on Bill C-14. In his view, the Liberals should have delayed the implementation of the Canada-wide MAID regime for at least five to 10 years until it could be adequately determined what the impact of assisted death would be in all communities across our vast and diverse country. Mr. Ouellette spoke against adding fuel to the suicide crisis that had taken such a heartbreaking toll on reserves.

Tyler White, CEO of Siksika Health Services, said recently that Bill C-7 ran the risk of undoing the work that indigenous elders had done to curb the frequency of suicides among indigenous youth. What message does Bill C-7 send these young people? If indigenous advocates believe that Bill C-14 was a step in the wrong direction, why is the government taking things even further with Bill C-7? What is the purpose of rushing this?

I also remember the elements of the Bill C-14 debate pertaining to instances of MAID abuse in other parts of the world. This is key. The Belgian model, which Bill C-14 was modelled after, is known for its abuse. In Belgium and the Netherlands, MAID laws, once limited to mentally competent, terminally ill adults, now include adults and children with mental deficiencies, severely disabled individuals and even those with treatable psychiatric conditions, such as anorexia and depression. Between 2012 and 2017, the Netherlands alone saw a 600% increase in euthanasia, which was sought to address psychiatric conditions.

When was the government planning to take a hard look at Canada's MAID regime and how we could prevent this kind of abuse in the future? The Minister of Justice says that it is in the works and part of the plan. Why was it not done first? This is the cart before the horse. It is the tail wagging the dog.

By ignoring a five-year review, the government has also cast aside the concerns of physicians. We cannot ignore the monumental importance medical professionals place on their Hippocratic oath, such is true of Dr. Ramona Coelho, a champion of conscience rights in her field. She told former MP David Anderson at the end of the Parliament, “Doctors know the importance of conscience rights to protect themselves and their patients...people like me who are being pressured to leave family medicine. I know palliative care doctors in Ontario who have stopped practising. I know nurses in institutions who are feeling bullied…shift their focus, or retire early ...The pressure is there, and we are looking for relief.”

It saddens me that the government has yet to establish conscience protections for medical practitioners who do not wish to violate their conscience while at a patient's beside. This bill is asking doctors to go far beyond what Bill C-14 even asked them to do. In Dr. Coelho's words, “it is my conscience that pushes me to go the extra mile, and I think patient care will suffer if doctors are not allowed to live with integrity and follow their conscience.”

It is because of this risk of abuse on many fronts that many of us on this side of the House walked away from the Bill C-14 debate with an unpleasant feeling in our gut, one that suggested that the implementation of the MAID regime had started Canada down a very slippery slope to a culture of death on demand. We are at Bill C-7 today.

However, there was an ever-present light at the end of the tunnel with Bill C-14. The five-year review was important to members of the House and indeed to all Canadians. It is shameful we find ourselves ramming through this legislation before this review is even started.

On that note, I realize that the Liberals are frustrated that my colleagues and I have been so diligent in vocalizing the outpouring of concern from disabled Canadians, concerned medical professionals and those whose personal beliefs conflict with the bill. That is our responsibility.

The Liberals desperately want to speed up the passage of this life and death legislation. They want to meet the deadline imposed by the Quebec Superior Court, a deadline they could have met comfortably if the House had sat in May and June and the Prime Minister had not prorogued Parliament in August.

In a way, this is beside the point. The December 18 deadline is arbitrary, as was the deadline for Bill C-14. As legislators, our mandate is to pass the best legislation possible for all Canadians. I underscore the words “all Canadians”.

The bill has barely been studied as the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights only held four meetings of hearings. Many witnesses and briefs were denied a voice because of this. Of course, the Liberals certainly could have, should have and still could appeal the Quebec Superior Court decision. We could have struck a balance in good faith of what Canadians actually wanted when it came to end-of-life decisions.

As I said in a previous debate, four years since the passage of Bill C-14 has allowed Canadians to further process the idea of assisted death. Almost 80% of Canadians believe it should be easier to make end-of-life decisions for themselves. That number is seven points higher than it was four years ago upon the passage of Bill C-14.

At the same time, Canadians are unwavering in their support of strong safeguards for the most vulnerable in our society as well as conscience protections for medical professionals. They are unwavering. According to an Angus Reid Institute poll released last month, the same majority of Canadians who desire empowerment in their end-of-life decisions want Parliament to weigh the risks of MAID for those living with mental health issues such as depression.

Sixty-nine per cent of Canadians fear depressed individuals could see MAID as a means to escape dealing with the underlying cause of their condition. Of those surveyed, 65% want Parliament and the courts to consider MAID's impact on the elderly and those with disabilities. They fear death-on-demand could encourage these Canadians to seek it as a means of ending their perceived burden on others. This perceived feeling is being encouraged and more research needs to be done.

Sixty-two per cent of Canadians want Parliament and the courts to examine the potential impact of MAID on our health care system. There is a danger that increased reliance on assisted death will lead policy-makers to begin neglecting long-term and palliative care. I am being gracious in saying “begin”, because, in my view, we can see this discouraging trend unfolding already.

Seventy per cent of Canadians continue to live without access to palliative care, while the government has failed to invest the $3 billion it promised to help in closing that gap. Clearly there is a discrepancy.

Canadians are equally as outspoken when it comes to conscience protection for doctors or those whose faith bars their participation in MAID. Fifty-seven per cent agree that nursing homes and hospices with conscientious objections should be able to deny MAID to those who request it. The Canadian Medical Association has indicated that 23,000 doctors are available to provide this service, which is more than enough across Canada. We need to protect our conscience protections.

Canadians want to see reasonable safeguards maintained in Bill C-7. They want to see Parliament legislate with their interests in mind, their interests, not those of the courts. They want to see the House continue to give credence to the views of medical professionals and those with disabilities.

Regrettably, judging by what we have seen through debate, Bill C-7 is another example of the government allowing the courts to legislate for Canadians. This bill is not reflective of what Canadians hold dear: Care and compassion for all, regardless of age, disabilities or religious beliefs.

Public health and economic safeguards have been the highest priority of the House throughout the pandemic. That is why so many in this place and across the country find Bill C-7's attack on end-of-life safeguards so painfully ironic and troubling. It is for this reason I cannot and will not support the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to relay for the hon. member a bit of a story. Recently, on my Facebook page, I shared a picture of a clinic that had “Suicide Prevention” written on the front door with a set of stairs going up, and “Assisted Suicide” on the side door with a ramp going up. Something I often raise about this bill is that it would create two classes of citizens in the country.

Ms. Keay, a constituent of mine from Whitecourt, recently reached out to me. She was concerned that the picture I shared on my Facebook page was not reflective of the current situation in Canada. I have assured her that it is indeed reflective of it.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on the two classes of citizens we would create with this bill.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, it definitely needs to be discussed. For some reason, the members on the other side of the floor feel they have heard from the disability community. I have no idea who they have spoken to, because every disability organization across the country has come out saying the bill is a danger to it and it wants to see the safeguards in it.

Maybe a lot of Canadians are just waking up to this reality, but every letter I have received, like my colleague, indicates there is great concern. We value our life in this country. We value every person. My children had the privilege of growing up in a school where those with handicaps and disabilities were part of the classroom, which was something very different than I experienced. There is such a growing appreciation of the fact that all lives matter, regardless of one's conditions, and that we all have something to contribute to our country, our families and our communities.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Yorkton—Melville has referenced the issue of the steep slippery slope on which we find ourselves. Back when Bill C-14 was being debated in the House, many of us had concerns it was indeed a slippery slope and we were generally mocked and accused of fearmongering. Today, here we are. In fact, it is very clear it was a steep slippery slope.

It is the vulnerable in Canada who are being exposed to medically assisted death. I would ask the member to comment on the assurances from the government that those with mental health issues, children and other vulnerable Canadians will not be exposed to this in the future and that they will be fully protected under the legislation.

I would like her comments on whether she takes those words at face value or questions them.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am very troubled by what the government says and what it does. It puts preambles up on websites, but does not include them in its bills.

I put something on my Facebook that said, “If it's not in the bill, it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, there is cause for concern.” We have heard that concern on this side of the floor, as the official opposition, from groups across the country. If the Liberals truly mean what they say, they need to ensure those safeguards are in the bill. They should go the extra mile to say that they truly care about the vulnerable and make it their priority. Right now, no way are Canadians hearing that from the government.

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

Madam Speaker, a member stated earlier in question period that it was members of the faith communities who were holding up the bill, that they had an agenda. In my observations, throughout the committees and hearing the witnesses, although faith-based communities have been involved, primarily the disabled and indigenous communities have been sounding the alarm on the legislation.

I was hoping the member could comment on how incredibly inappropriate it is to try to cast aspersions on the motivations of vulnerable people who are just trying to stand up for their right to live.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is very disconcerting when it drops to that level. I guess that shows desperation.

That being said, the reality is this. We all have faith. My faith may be very different from someone else's, but whatever we do in this place is motivated by who we are and what we have entrenched in our lives through the relationships, exposure and perspectives we bring to this place. I am honoured to be here for who I am. We are in the House of Commons. We represent the sense of Canada across the nation, all our different regions and perspectives. It is an honour for me to stand here and represent the people who came to us for help on this issue, people with disabilities—

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

Unfortunately, I have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to participate in the third reading debate of Bill C-7. I want to recognize the very real and legitimate challenge here and the difficult questions that were raised by the Truchon decision, which declared that the reasonably foreseeable death criterion for accessing medical assistance in dying goes against the charter and is null and void. When we talk about the deadline in December that we are working toward, we are talking about the moment when the court decision will take effect and the criterion, regardless of whether Bill C-7 passes, will take effect. At that point, reasonable foreseeability of death will no longer be a condition for accessing medical assistance in dying.

That raises a lot of difficult questions. It raises a lot of questions about the nature of human dignity. Of course, one thing to consider in the long-standing debate on medical assistance in dying is the dignity provided to people who are experiencing severe suffering and know that it is not going to get better. There is a sense of autonomy that comes from being able to choose their own time to go and the conditions under which they go.

There is another really important side to human dignity, and we have heard some other members speak to it already today. It is the dignity of those who choose life and want to choose life. They have to know that in so doing they have the resources and the respect for their human rights to make that affirmation of life and to choose to go on.

I want to take some time to recognize that, for people in the disability community in Canada, this debate comes in a very difficult context. It comes in the context of decades of neglect and inadequate resourcing and support, and a recognition of the barriers they face in trying to live a full life and realize their potential. It comes in the context of the pandemic, during which there have been conversations about how to allocate scarce resources and a real worry, on the part of people living with disabilities, that decision-makers might not value their lives in the way they value the lives of others, which has to be scary.

When they looked for reassurance that the government had their backs and understood these concerns, what they saw over the first number of months of the pandemic, about six or seven months, was a lot of heel-dragging on a commitment to make a simple one-time payment to support people with disabilities regarding the added costs and difficulties of the pandemic. I can understand why that does not engender a lot of confidence that the government has their backs and understands their real concerns.

In light of the Truchon decision, the long-standing neglect of people living with disabilities and the heightened sense of urgency given the pandemic, I can definitely understand how this has become such a charged issue and understand the very strong feelings that people, especially in the disability community, are facing. They do not want to be faced with the terrible dilemma of having to choose between a life of poverty and suffering on the one hand and a premature death on the other hand.

There are certainly members in the House speaking today to one side of that dilemma, which is wanting to ensure that people are not forced into a premature death. However, I put it to the House that we cannot do that if we are not willing to address the other side of the dilemma, which is to recognize the overwhelming number of people in Canada living with disabilities who are forced into a life of poverty. There are a number of people living with disabilities who have managed to overcome a whole bunch of barriers to get gainful employment and support themselves and their families, and that is a wonderful thing. That is what I wish for all people living with disabilities for whom that is a possibility.

However, we also have to recognize that many people with disabilities are not going to have a full-time job just like everybody else. There are barriers that simply will not permit that. That is why we see such a high number of people living with disabilities on various kinds of social assistance plans and other kinds of income support programs.

Those programs have been totally inadequate for allowing the people who depend on them for their income to live with dignity. When we talk about dignity, it is really important that we talk about this, human rights and the importance of recognizing that people living with disabilities have rights and deserve to live in dignity. It takes resources to do that.

I really want to take the time to put the emphasis on that side, because the court has made a decision about whether a reasonably foreseeable death can be part of the criteria for medical assistance in dying. The government chose not to appeal it. I cannot change the government's decision on that. The NDP cannot change the government's decision on that. However, what we can do is try to add to and take on the sense of urgency the government has had in getting this legislation through the House when the House has been sitting.

I take the point. There is some real legitimacy to the point that, as we all know, we could have had more time in the House to consider these questions. When members talk about the effect of prorogation on House time, they are quite right about it. We have seen some urgency from the government regarding the legislation, but we need to see that same urgency for putting the supports in place for people living with disabilities so that the overwhelming majority of people living with disabilities are not forced, by virtue of being on some kind of income support plan, to live a life of poverty.

That is why I was proud, as the NDP's disability inclusion critic, to write, alongside the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, the government last week, calling for it to institute one national disability income support program that would cover people who are already receiving income support under the auspices of a disability program, whether it is through the provinces, the territories or the federal government. We want to set that at a rate of $2,200 a month to recognize that $2,000 a month is a reasonable standard, which many in the country recognized during the pandemic. It is not easy for everyone, for sure, but it is a reasonable standard of income. We have seen a larger consensus than ever on that.

We also need to recognize, as we did when the Canada emergency student benefit was established, that people living with disabilities do face additional costs. There was a differential for students living with disabilities. They were paid a little more in recognition of those additional costs. I think that $2,200 a month would accomplish that and would make sure that no matter where people in Canada, they have some kind of basic income that would allow them to put a roof over their head and get the basic necessities of life. Valuing life cannot just mean “not death”. It has to mean providing the resources for people to really live a life they value and that they feel allows them to meet their full potential.

That is not just a question of income. It is also a question of getting very deliberate and focused about an employment strategy to change the attitude of many employers who do not have experience with people living with disabilities. We can educate them about what they can do in the workplace to make it more friendly to people living with disabilities. It will help overcome some of those barriers and change attitudes in society generally.

It is also about supports, like investments in good public housing where rent is geared to income, so those who are not high-income people can still afford to be in good housing. It is about investing in good transportation options so that people living with disabilities who are not able to own or operate their own vehicle still have good options to get around the city. This helps with employment, but it also helps with socializing in times when we are able to do that.

If we want to talk about the value of life, these are things we not only have to talk about, but have to do. We have to do them with the same sense of urgency that the government has put on passing this legislation. I am very much looking forward to doing things in that urgent way, and the NDP will continue to push for this.

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

Madam Speaker, I had the honour of listening to the member's father, a very long-standing and esteemed member of the House, when he spoke at my university about the intersection between faith, social gospel and the founding of the NDP.

In the context of this debate, it was raised by a member in question period that those of a faith-based perspective who might be opposed to this legislation are so-called religious fanatics. I would like the member to talk about this and affirm that people who have a faith-based perspective on legislation such as MAID have a legitimate point of view.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not think the comments made earlier in question period are helpful for the debate. This is a difficult issue, and it is rightly a difficult issue. It is one of the most important issues, and it is a fundamental existential issue.

People bring their faith to the debate. That does not mean everyone is going to agree. We know that not everyone in the Christian community, for example, agrees on this point. There are people of faith who are proponents of medical assistance in dying, just as there are people of faith who are opponents of medical assistance in dying, and there is just about every position in between.

The important thing is to stay focused on the issue at hand and not to get into ad hominem arguments. I know there is often a temptation for that in politics, but particularly for issues like this, it is important to avoid that temptation.

[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, there is one concern that I believe has a lot of legitimacy, and it would be nice to see some further dialogue on it. It is with regard to palliative care. Depending on where one might live in the country, whether it is urban or rural, there is a great deal of difference in obtaining palliative care.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona is very much aware of provincial jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction, so I am interested in hearing his thoughts about what he believes the national role should be on the issue of palliative care. If he could go beyond the idea of providing money, I would very much value his opinion.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for raising the issue of palliative care. I want to take a moment to recognize the very good work of the member for Timmins—James Bay over the years on that very point. There was a motion he helped the House pass that called for a national palliative care strategy. When I talk about according to other issues the urgency the government accorded to Bill C-7, this is one of those issues. That motion passed a long time ago now, and we have not seen that kind of action happen.

We need to get moving on these things. It is the lack of action on those things that people in the disability community and other vulnerable communities look at, and it is part of why they worry. The government and people in politics have words about these things, but we need to show that we can pass to action.

We need to do that when it comes to palliative care. We also need to do it when it comes to things like pharmacare and dental care. We must ensure that everyone, regardless of their employment status or their income, has access to those things as part and parcel of valuing life. We need to create supports for people living with disabilities that will allow those who want to choose life to have a life in which they can flourish and live with dignity. I believe that is most people.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for working with me on the proposal we sent last week to the government for a national income support program for people with disabilities that would replace the patchwork of programs across the country managed by the provinces.

I wonder if the member could comment on what he thinks the premiers' reactions or provincial governments' reactions would be to a federal national income support program for people with disabilities.

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

Madam Speaker, I think most members of the House are aware of the fact that provincial governments have been struggling a lot as a result of the pandemic. They have asked in many cases for additional transfers of funding that do not have any conditions attached.

The federal government is the government with the most financial wherewithal, and this moment, when the medical assistance in dying regime is changing, gives an even stronger added sense of urgency to the need to support people living with disabilities. This means freeing up some room in the budgets of provincial governments that currently have income support programs for people with disabilities so they can spend on other priorities.

I would hasten to add this should not be a replacement for the non-income supports that are provided for housing and transportation. This would be a quick way to put some money back into the pockets of provincial governments while raising up the level of support for people living with disabilities, no matter where they live in the country. That is one of the virtues of this proposal.

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

Madam Speaker, I was just wondering if the hon. member is not concerned about the two classes of citizens the bill would create. The first is if they are able-bodied Canadians, then suicide prevention measures would be given to them at their first request. The second is if they are disabled Canadians on their worst day and they are attempting suicide, then they would be provided with MAID.

Is the member not concerned about the two streams and the two classes of citizens that we would be creating with the bill?

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

Madam Speaker, I see the member's question as an opportunity to highlight a provision of the bill that I do not think has really been talked about in the context of the debate in this way.

I have heard Conservatives say that they are worried that the 90-day period is not enough for people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. However, that waiting period is the waiting period that would apply to people living with disabilities whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. Therefore, Bill C-7 would add something that will not be there if we do not add it by passing the bill by the deadline. We could have a case where a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable, but who meets the other criteria, could get access to MAID a lot more quickly than if we pass Bill C-7 before the deadline.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member's comments are always very thoughtful and well considered, so I really appreciate that.

The issue around dignity of life centres very much on people's ability to support themselves and the issue around income. To that end, with regard to the proposal for a new program from the government to support people with disabilities, what sort of response has the member received from the government on this proposal?

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

Madam Speaker, to date, we have not received a response. We sent the letter in about the middle of last week.

What we do know from the government is that it had a vague commitment in the Speech from the Throne to a bold new disability income support program. We are trying to fill in the blanks. Oftentimes, we see the current government, on other issues, make promises without a lot of details. Characteristically, New Democrats are interested in the details and how we would get it done.

That is why we proposed a number, we proposed a way to do it and we proposed what the advantages of doing that would be in terms of making sure that it does not depend on what part of the country people live in or what their level of income support is as a person living with disabilities. It is a way to put money back in the hands of provinces at a time when they desperately need it, and it is a way now to make sure that if they do need income support as a person living with disabilities, they are not forced below the poverty line. If we look at the rates that are paid across the provinces and by the federal government, it is not enough to make it. It is just not enough and that has to change.

When we talk about valuing life, about people choosing life and about not forcing them into a dilemma between premature death on the one hand and poverty and suffering on the other, it has to mean an income that does not keep them below the poverty line. That absolutely has to change and that is the real crux of that proposal.

We are hoping that the government will see that proposal as a good way to implement its own promise. If the Liberals have another idea, they had better hurry up and share it because this needs to be addressed with the same sense of urgency as this bill has been pushed through the House.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, when it comes to any safeguards being removed, to me it poses a great threat. We need to provide adequate safeguards for everyone traversing the valley of the shadow of death—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again to speak to Bill C-7, the government's medical assistance in dying legislation. I do acknowledge that this is an incredibly complex subject matter for which there are many diverse views.

With that said, the way in which the government and the Attorney General have handled the legislation is a lesson in what not to do, having regard for the gravity of the legislation. I say that having full respect for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. I believe he is a sincere and intelligent individual who is compassionate and does want to do what he believes to be right.

That said, when the Minister of Justice spoke in the House at second reading, he indicated that there were widespread consultations and that out of those consultations there was a consensus. Neither is true.

The consultations that the minister spoke about were largely over the course of one month in January of this year. They were online consultations that excluded vulnerable segments of the population, including persons with mobility, cognitive or visual impairments, persons without access to the Internet and persons living in remote and northern communities. Their voices were not heard or were not heard as easily as a result of the online consultation process that started and ended within roughly a period of one month.

Not only that, but the consultations were said to have had a predetermined outcome. In other words, the minister had an idea of the legislation that he sought to craft and he used the process as a way of getting the answers that he had hoped to receive.

Do not take my word for that. Take the words of the persons who were involved in the consultation process, including Heidi Janz of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, or Dr. Catherine Frazee, the former chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and a leading advocate for persons with disabilities. They said that the consultations were predetermined when they appeared before the justice committee.

What about the consensus that supposedly arose out of these so-called extensive consultations that simply were not so? We know that out of those consultations just about every national disability rights organization opposes this bill. As we speak, they are calling on the minister and the government to put this bill on pause. We know that more than 1,100 physicians have penned a letter expressing their opposition. Concerns were expressed by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities.

Just about every witness, if not every witness other than the minister himself, who appeared before the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee that held hearings the last couple of weeks, panned the bill. No one, it seems, is happy with the bill. So much for the minister's assertion at second reading in the House that there was a consensus. There was no consensus, because there was no meaningful consultation, and there was a predetermined result that has resulted in legislation that just about everyone in one way, shape or form has been highly critical of.

I heard over the course of the debate members of the government and other parties talk about this issue in a context as if there were no risks, “Get out of the way, let the patients make their choice and throw out safeguards, because otherwise one is infringing on individual autonomy.” The Supreme Court of Canada recognized in Carter that “there are risks, to be sure”, at paragraph 105 of the Carter decision, and the court talked about how those risks can be “'very substantially minimized through a carefully-designed system' that imposes strict limits that are scrupulously monitored and enforced”. That is what the Supreme Court of Canada said.

When we talk about those risks, one need look no further than the case of Roger Foley, who is severely disabled, requires 24-hour care and is in a hospital facility in London, Ontario. I will read what he said about his experience, because it really is quite shocking. When he came before the justice committee, he talked about what can happen when there are insufficient safeguards, and we are talking about safeguards that are in Bill C-14 which are now being further removed by Bill C-7. He said:

I have been coerced into assisted death by abuse, neglect, lack of care and threats. For example, at a time when I was advocating for assistance to live and for self-directed home care, the hospital ethicist and nurses were trying to coerce me into an assisted death by threatening to charge me $1,800 per day or force-discharge me without the care I needed to live. I felt pressured by these staff raising assisted dying rather than relieving my suffering with dignified and compassionate care.

In the face of that, we put forward an amendment to say that this must patient-initiated. The minister responsible for disability inclusion said that she had grave concerns about what happened to Roger Foley, and she has heard about this regularly. Yet, even in the face of that evidence, the government rejected that very common-sense amendment, rejected other amendments and instead moved recklessly ahead. We are now in this untenable situation where the most vulnerable persons in our society could be put at risk. It really is unfortunate that it has panned out this way. I can only hope that the Senate will bring forward substantive amendments to this deeply flawed legislation.

[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, the member looks to the government and accuses it of defeating Conservative amendments. I suspect that, if the member were to reflect on what took place in committee, he would likely find that, in a minority situation, it is not just the Liberal Party that would carry the vote in a committee. The member knows this full well.

The Conservatives were unable to convince enough members of the committee to support the Conservative amendments. I suspect that the current legislation, as it is, reflects the overall thinking, dating back to 2015, from the Carter decision to the superior court decision in Quebec, which has in essence put forward the deadline of December 18.

With respect to other members of his caucus, one in particular said that the Government of Canada has two options, going to the Quebec to say that we need an extension or going to the Supreme Court. Does the hon. member share that opinion, and could he expand on it?

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

Madam Speaker, very simply, I do share that opinion. I would further add that it should never have come to this, because the appropriate course of action for the Attorney General to have taken was to appeal the Truchon decision in the first place. Had the minister done so, at the very least, we would not be in this position of trying to rush through legislation on the eve of the stay of the declaration on constitutional invalidity expiring.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know the Conservatives have expressed a lot of concern about people who are making money during the pandemic who should not be making money during the pandemic. I know they are not talking about the 20 billionaires who made $38 billion in the first six months of this pandemic.

The Conservatives are talking about people who got the CERB who do not deserve the CERB. In the last week, I have had a number of constituents, people with disabilities, contact my office because they are getting letters from the CRA saying that they need to pay back the $14,000 they received from the CERB. These are people who have disabilities and who are self-employed and use that income to pay their rent and utilities and to help with expenses. They did not understand the difference between the gross and the net amounts in the application process. People on disability benefits here in British Columbia can earn $12,000 a year before their disability starts getting clawed back, dollar for dollar.

Would the hon. member like to see more compassion on this issue of taking care of people with disabilities now, while they are alive, trying to survive? What does the member think should be done?

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

Madam Speaker, what I would hope is that the concerns expressed by the disability community would be heard as we debate this important piece of legislation.

Unfortunately, those voices were not heard by the Attorney General. They were not heard by Liberal MPs. They were heard by my friend from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, who did bring forward some important amendments at the committee, which we supported and which we thought moved in the right direction to provide greater certainty to protect vulnerable persons. However, those amendments were rejected by the Liberals across the way.

I hope, in the face of all of that, the Senate will do better than the process we have had in the House.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I knew entering federal politics would mean participating in many very important debates in the House, but speaking on matters of life and death brings that to a whole new level. As someone who comes from a small city in northern Saskatchewan and now has the privilege of representing the entire northern 52% of Saskatchewan, I hope to bring somewhat of a unique perspective to this debate.

As we stand here in Ottawa and debate this legislation, there are several communities in my riding dealing with very high suicide rates. Makwa Sahgaiehcan First Nation, a community of about a thousand people, has over 100 community members currently on suicide watch.

There are long-term care home and palliative care shortages across the country, but this is even more true in northern and remote communities. We need to consider what message we, as legislators, are sending to these vulnerable communities when we go way beyond the Supreme Court of Canada's Carter decision by removing safeguards that would protect Canada's most vulnerable.

The government is now seeking to play an active role rather than a passive role in the end of Canadians' lives. I find this extremely troubling and implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to allow the necessary time to consider the truly long-term ramifications of the legislation and to listen to all the voices speaking out on it. This does not need to be done with unnecessary hurry.

There are two main topics I want to address when it comes to Bill C-7. Number one is the impact passing the legislation will have on indigenous communities, and number two is the importance of safeguards to protect Canada's most vulnerable.

I do not stand here pretending for one moment to speak on behalf of indigenous people in Canada. However, over my lifetime I have developed relationships with many first nations and Métis people in northern Saskatchewan and over the year I have discussed this issue of assisted dying with many of them. There is a great worry among the leadership of these nations that legitimizing suicide in our culture will have grave impacts on their younger generations as well as those who are nearing the end of their lives.

These concerns were actually raised during debate in the last Parliament by Liberal MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette during his speech on what was then Bill C-14. He said:

In the indigenous world view, everything is interconnected. It is holistic, meaning that when a change is made in one place, the impact will be felt elsewhere, and the two cannot be separated. In the western world view, often we compartmentalize things. We believe that we can play, that we can control certain situations, that we can effect change here and not see change in other places. Above all, we have come to believe ourselves able to predict and control all, to control the future. This does not mean, though, that we should not take action.

The impact of this bill on people in Toronto may be very different than on the people in Nunavik or Attawapiskat. Our role as parliamentarians is to place ourselves in the moccasins of others, to place ourselves outside of our own experiences, to see the world through another cosmology and other world view, and to see the impact that our decisions may have on others.

We are making profound changes in concepts surrounding life, which cannot be undone in the future. In the indigenous tradition and philosophy, we are required to think seven generations into the future. If I am wrong and there is no connection between Attawapiskat and physician-assisted dying or suicide, if the average person does not see a connection and communities do not see a greater stress, then I will gladly say I was wrong; but if there is an impact, which is caused by the valorization of suicide, then what?

Mr. Ouellette then goes on to share a very personal and difficult story of hardship he and his siblings faced as young children, which led him to nearly take his own life. He goes on to say:

If in my life I had seen, or I had known, that my grandmother had somehow used physician-assisted dying or physician-assisted suicide, or others in my family had completed the irreparable act, then it would have made it much more difficult for me to continue.

We might not think the impact will be there, but we do not know. We assume we know these things. We are deciding the future of a few for the end of a few.

Speaking to CBC during the debate on Bill C-14, Senator Murray Sinclair shared similar views. He said:

From the indigenous perspective, ending one’s own life was not encouraged, in fact it was discouraged and there are teachings in my community, Ojibwa teachings, around whether or not you will be able to travel to the spirit world in the proper way or a ceremony could be done for you if you make the decision to end your life without good reason.

In speaking to his colleagues in the Senate, Senator Sinclair, speaking about younger people, said:

It will not take much for a young, vulnerable person to believe that their situation is intolerable to them and, therefore, we need to ensure the message we send to the Canadian public with this legislation is that this is not a right that should be easily exercised or that we are embracing.

First nations people in northern Saskatchewan, Mr. Ouellette from Manitoba and Senator Murray Sinclair are not alone. Tyler White, chief executive officer for the Siksika Health Services, as well as Dr. Thomas Fung, a lead physician of the same nation, are sounding alarms in response to the legislation. During an interview with CTV, Mr. White said, “The expansion of MAID sends a contradictory message to our peoples that some individuals should receive suicide prevention, while others suicide assistance.”

In a letter shared with my office, Mr. White and Dr. Fung told the story of 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. 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, but he was just out of the range of being approved for funding. Dr. Fung concluded by writing that under Bill C-7, this patient would have qualified for assisted death when it should be clear to all that there are other ways to relieve this man's suffering and 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 universality of access to life-saving treatments, not the universal admissibility to a physician-administered death.

I want to talk for a minute about the safeguards for vulnerable Canadians and how the legislation would fail to provide them. I am not a lawyer, but thankfully the Leader of the Opposition is. We are probably all glad that is the case, that I am not the lawyer. I was glad to be in the House during this speech on Bill C-7 this morning.

Leaning on his legal expertise, allow me to repeat some of what he said regarding previous litigation surrounding assisted death, because it struck me as very important. He said, “All of them talked about the role of the state in protecting the decisionally vulnerable, as they were called, people who could be pushed into end-of-life treatment because they felt they were a burden. This has been talked about since the 1990s, and this Attorney General is removing the safeguards from our regime. Every ounce of case law on the issue of assisted dying, euthanasia or assisted suicide talks about protecting those vulnerable.”

Speaking of protecting the vulnerable, the leader also said, “All major disability groups in Canada agree with the compassionate and reasonable position being presented by my Conservative colleagues. I am very proud of the advocacy we have shown. We have also been joined by legal scholars, indigenous leaders and people working with people with mental health issues.” I wholeheartedly echo the comments made by my hon. friend this morning and repeat the need for the government to step back from its repealing of the provisions that would ensure a 10-day waiting period, as well as two witnesses.

As a matter of fact, regarding the 10-day waiting period, a senior employee of the AFN shared on Twitter recently, “This ten day period literally saved a member of family’s life. MAID must be accessible but also account for clear and thoughtful consent. The Liberals should rethink this.”

In closing, I want to completely acknowledge that both sides of this debate are coming from a point of view of compassion. I understand that the government has approached the drafting of the legislation in good faith, but the reality is that it has fallen short of its duty to Canadians. That is why I will be voting against this dangerous bill and I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will reconsider their support for it as well.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about this being a life and death issue. Oftentimes, when we sit in this place, we look to these issues with the degree of magnitude that they deserve.

As the bill went through committee, there were some challenges. I know some reasonable amendments were put forward by the Conservative caucus. I am wondering if the member could speak to those reasonable amendments and just how important they are to determining this piece of legislation.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I agree that some reasonable amendments were proposed, and we would like to see the 10-day reflection period I talked about put back. I would like to share a really personal story about this, which I think will emphasize that point to the House.

Back in 2014, in my small city in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, a young lady graduated from high school, a tremendous athlete. She had just finished her nursing degree, and I think one Tuesday night she was in a terrible car accident and ended up a paraplegic. This was a family friend of mine, and I had the privilege, or maybe the horror, of being in the hospital with her family that night and in the following days. I can guarantee the House that this young lady would have chosen death over life at that point if she had had that opportunity.

Now this young lady, several years later, is a Paralympic athlete. She has gotten back to doing incredible things with her life. She has been all over the world for athletics. I could talk for a long time about this, but I am going to say something that came from her dad. He said, “One of the really cool things we are slowly catching is the members of this special group of people don’t see themselves constrained in any way.” People with disabilities do not see this when they get past the hurdle of the original burden, which, in this case, was this young lady's accident.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, we know that physicians are very concerned about conscience protections for medical practitioners. Right from the beginning, with Bill C-14, many stressed that this should be part of Bill C-7, yet the Liberal government has totally ignored it and punted it down to the provinces. I believe it is impacting palliative care and impacting people's perspectives of serving in the medical profession. I would just like some comments from the member in that regard.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I fully agree. Probably the second most common concern I have heard about from people is conscience rights. I have talked to people who believe that is a huge issue. They do not believe that their personal belief system, faith or life journeys should be impacted by some imposition of government.

I want to share one other quick comment here. In the debate on this in the last Parliament, the former attorney general and justice minister commented about preventing the normalization of suicide to protect vulnerable person who are disproportionately at risk of inducement to suicide. She spoke of that repeatedly. This is from a CTV article:

In defending it before the Senate, [the former justice minister] warned that expanding the eligibility criteria to include anyone who is suffering intolerably would “send the wrong message that society feels it is appropriate to address suffering in life by choosing death. This message may encourage some who are in crisis and already considering suicide to act.”

I really do not think we should be putting our medical professionals in that place.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I feel honoured tonight to be speaking to Bill C-7 given the many great speeches by my Conservative colleagues, who are concerned about our citizens and especially those in the disability and senior communities.

I speak today deeply concerned about Bill C-7 and the changes being proposed in the legislation. I know this is an emotional issue for everyone, and it is an important discussion we are having this evening. Any legislation that is introduced in Parliament requires a thorough review, but this is especially true for bills that are literally matters of life and death.

It is my firm belief that the federal government should have appealed to the Supreme Court to get certainty on the framework within which Parliament can legislate. Unfortunately, that did not happen, so here we are with a rushed bill that puts the lives of our most vulnerable at risk.

Make no mistake: As a Christian I am firmly against the use of medically assisted dying. That said, I understand that the courts have made a ruling and the legislation is required. However, we must ensure that this type of legislation includes safeguards for the most vulnerable in our society and for the conscience rights of physicians and health professionals.

That is why we Conservatives introduced a number of reasonable amendments to reinstate protections that the Liberal government has simply removed, which is troubling. These include reinstating a 10-day reflection period when death is reasonably foreseeable, extending the reflection period when death is not reasonably foreseeable, protecting vulnerable patients by requiring that the patient be the one who first requests information on medical assistance in dying and protecting the conscience rights of health care professionals.

It is unfortunate that these amendments have been rejected by the government. I am deeply concerned that this legislation will allow assisted death for Canadians who are not dying by removing the requirement that a person's death must be reasonably foreseeable for them to be eligible for assisted suicide and euthanasia.

My dad is 86 and my mom is 76, and as the son of two elderly Canadians, I am very concerned about what this would mean for our nation's seniors and the positions they may be put in when trying to access health care. Will they be placed in a position where they will have to decide between care and ending their lives because of outside pressure? As the bill expands medically assisted dying further, there is a risk that palliative care will suffer and, as a result, patients will view medically assisted dying as a better option.

I know Canadians share my concerns. It must be said that every national disability organization in Canada opposes this legislation. Krista Carr, executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada, said at committee, “Bill C-7 is our worst nightmare.” These organizations caution that removing the end of life requirement discriminates against those who are disabled and puts their lives at even greater risk. Ms. Carr notes:

The end-of-life requirement was the only safeguard whereby disability was not the sole criterion. By having a disability itself under Bill C-7 as the justification for the termination of life, the very essence of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be shattered. Discrimination on the basis of disability would once again be entrenched in Canadian law.

It is shameful that in the Liberal government's rush to pass the bill before Christmas, it continues to neglect to address legitimate concerns being raised by persons with disabilities.

I am also deeply concerned about the limited protections for the conscience rights of our medical professionals. While some doctors and health care workers may have been comfortable with medically assisted dying under Bill C-14, the continued expansion may cause them to rethink their participation.

Others who have always been against medically assisted dying are already feeling the pressure to go against what they believe. As the Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia said in a news release just last March, “The pressure has been intense for many physicians, especially amongst palliative specialists, some leaving their profession even before this latest development. Descriptions were made of toxic practice environments and fear of discipline by medical regulators.”

Members of the justice committee have heard first-hand from disability advocates vehemently opposed to Bill C-7 and its rapid expansion of medical assistance in dying. They argue it amounts to a deadly form of discrimination, making it easier for persons with disabilities to die than live. It is shameful.

Health care professionals have also spoken out, concerned not only about their conscience rights but also about the speed at which the government is trying to pass Bill C-7. To quote Adam Taylor about the lack of consultation on this legislation, “As an emergency and family doctor, I know the importance of consultation, along with the day to day experiences and sufferings of Canadians which cannot be ignored. I'm terrifically concerned about this.” Even so, here we are, and the Liberals are continuing to push through the bill, ignoring concerns of those who would be directly affected by these changes. Again, it is shameful.

As the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada said in its submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we must carefully consider the impact of Bill C-7 and the concerns being raised by many Canadians, particularly Canadians with disabilities. The legislation, not to mention the human lives the bill would negatively affect, is too important to be rushed.

The House resumed from December 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the third time and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies had four minutes remaining in his time when the House last took up debate on the question. We will now go to him by video conference.

The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in case I do not have time at the end, I would like to wish you, your family and those at the table a very merry Christmas.

I would like to finish up my speech on Bill C-7 and my concerns. What highlights it more than my speaking for another four minutes are quotes from key individuals.

The Liberal member of Parliament for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, a doctor, said:

...as someone with a medical background and somebody who has dealt with this issue over the years a lot, I think morally it's incumbent upon me to stand up when it comes to issues of health and life and death....

My biggest concern, as someone who has spent my whole life trying to avoid accidentally killing people, is that we don't end up using MAID for people who don't really want to die....

I think, with a bit of time, people may come around to the fact that there are reasons they want to live.

I will go to another quote from another current Liberal member of Parliament, the member for Delta, British Columbia, who said, “I absolutely acknowledge and am quite preoccupied by the power imbalance between practitioners and patients, particularly patients who have been in systems that have discriminated against them and ignored their voices their entire lives. I have grave concerns with the particular circumstances of the individual that you spoke of”.

The individual is Roger Foley in this case. The quote comes from a Senate committee. She continued, “Quite frankly, I can tell you, he is not alone. I regularly hear from families who are appalled by the fact that they take their child, potentially their older child, in and are offered unprovoked [medical assistance in dying]. I think that has to stop. That’s a matter of practice, I would suggest, and we need to get at that through our regulations, through working with our medical associations.”

Here we see highlighted, even by our very own colleagues across the way in the Liberal Party, grave concerns about the current bill and the way it is written.

I will go to another quote from another doctor, Dr. Catherine Ferrier, who said:

To leave to doctors the decision about providing [medical assistance in dying] to anyone who meets the criteria is to entrust them with life-and-death decisions for millions of people in a vulnerable position. Doctors have the same limitations as everyone else does, which may include unconscious bias towards [medical assistance in dying] as an option and against living in certain situations. No one should [ever] have that power.

It should be made clear in the law that [medical assistance in dying] is not a medical treatment on the same level with real treatments. It's not a standard of care. It should be a last resort when all other reasonable options have failed.

I have one last quote by Dr. Trudo Lemmens and Leah Krakowitz-Broker from an op-ed, which states:

...unlike any other country in the world, the new bill fails to explicitly require that all reasonable...options be made available and tried first, before allowing physicians to end a patient’s life.

In other words, the bill makes dying easier than living.

Rather than instilling hope and helping to build resilience by focusing on options for living, health care providers will now be asked to discuss an early death.

The conversation I have heard far too many times from concerned citizens is that we have put our seniors, our disabled community and other communities in an abhorrent situation where they have to choose between treatment or death, based on the outside pressures of costs, burdens to their family and so forth. These are choices that should never have to be made by those who should be treated the best in our society.

It has been said many times in the House, over 300 times I know from our side and others, that this bill needs to change before it is—

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

I will let you further your arguments during the questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[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, when I look at Bill C-7, what I see is a reflection of the will of tens of thousands of Canadians in all regions of our country. I see reflections that come from the Supreme Court of Canada from six years ago and the many hours of discussions and debates, which are into the hundreds if not thousands, inside the chamber and at committees, in the House of Commons and the Senate. At some point, we need to recognize that, yes, there are going to be arguments on both sides of the issue, but at some point it does need to pass.

Does he not recognize the value of the deadline imposed by the Superior Court of Québec? Does the Conservative Party have any respect for that decision by the Superior Court of Québec?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, what the member across the way needs to understand is that we are legislators. We are sent here by our constituents to represent them and to represent their concerns. They have clearly spoken, across Canada, about their concerns with respect to the bill as it is written. We have suggested amendments to fix it the best way we possibly can and the current Liberal government has thrown them out and rejected them all. I would suggest to the member across the way that he listen to the constituents across Canada, hear their concerns and fix the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague, from my neck of the woods, handled that last question far more respectfully than I would have. I would have passed it back to the parliamentary secretary, saying that while the Liberals had months to be able to do this and push it forward, they prorogued for six weeks. If this was such an urgent matter for them, they would have done it.

We are sent here as legislators. We are sent here to be the voices of our electors. We are also sent here to be the voices of those who do not have a voice. I am someone who has an adult child with a disability, and I will get into that more in my speech tomorrow. Our job as parents is always to protect them. I can see both sides, because I have a father-in-law who is living beside me in palliative care right now. I have had many family members who have struggled with cancer.

Should we not be doing everything in our power to step back and take a reflective look at this piece of legislation to ensure that those fundamental core protections for our most vulnerable are in place before we move forward?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member, who is a good friend and colleague. Absolutely, as a parent of four children myself, it is our responsibility. We feel that responsibility especially with this bill.

I have senior parents who are still alive today. My dad is 86 and mom is 76. I am deeply concerned that they would ever be put in the position to have to make that decision. There are seniors who maybe do not have children who can care for them like I can. They may be put in a position where they are pressured to make a decision to end their lives as opposed to taking treatment or further care, not wanting to be perceived as a burden. It is a shame that we would even put them in that position. No Canadian should ever have to make the decision between treatment and physician-assisted suicide or medical assistance in dying. That should never happen.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate a lot of what my colleague had to say on this matter. One of the things he mentioned was the importance of having all health care options available, including palliative care and a stronger support system for those who are struggling and potentially nearing the end of their lives.

I wonder if the member has any comments on the current situation, particularly in northern and remote regions, concerning health care options and how important it is to ensure that all those options are available for people.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. What I would have preferred to see in a bill like Bill C-7 would be something to deal with palliative care and other treatments, even before considering a bill like this.

Again, as was brought up by my colleague previously, the government prorogued Parliament, yet things like palliative care for people who are ill, especially in northern communities, is a big gap. We do not see where the government is actually caring for those northern communities. As the former critic for northern affairs, we saw a big absence of care in the north. We should be looking at all forms of care and dealing with those first before we ever consider a bill like Bill C-7.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to wish you, as well as the table officers, pages and everyone who works in this building, happy holidays.

[Member spoke in Portuguese as follows:]

Feliz Natal!

It is with great pleasure that I speak to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to medical assistance in dying. First, I want to express my sincere gratitude to the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for their excellent work on this difficult matter and to all the witnesses who appeared before the committee and for their compelling testimony.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives have made it clear that they are not interested in improving the bill. They want to stop it from moving forward, all this while people continue to suffer across the country. In creating this important piece of legislation, we consulted with over 300,000 Canadians, including key stakeholders. At every opportunity we acknowledged that this was a complex and personal issue, and that we would respect the different views of parliamentarians and Canadians.

During these consultations I engaged with many disability advocates and experts who participated in most of the 10 round tables I hosted across the country in January and February, along with my colleagues, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion.

Two of the engagements I was involved with focused exclusively on the disabilities community, one in Vancouver at a round table with disabilities groups and another forum in Ottawa organized by the Canadian Association for Community Living, now Inclusion Canada, and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities in January, entitled End of Life, Equality and Disability: A National Forum on Medical Assistance in Dying.

During these consultations our government heard the voices of individuals with disabilities and degenerative illnesses who shared their perspectives and concerns, including those who believe that limiting medical assistance in dying to those who are dying is a violation of their rights and self-determination. These were individuals like Mr. Truchon and Madam Gladu, who initiated legal proceedings alleging that being precluded from accessing MAID violated their charter rights and deprived them of their preferred way of responding to intolerable suffering. Also Julia Lamb in Vancouver said quite clearly that she spoke for herself and that the leadership of the disability community did not speak for her.

We respect those voices from the disability community, which are as diverse as any community. These interventions had a direct impact on the structure of the legislation, including the non-end-of-life regime with additional safeguards as well as the substantive safeguards themselves, which affirm autonomy but balance safeguards for people who may have been in a vulnerable position. We heard those voices and we incorporated it into the very legislation that we proposed.

We also heard a clear consensus during the consultations that the additional 10-day reflection period—

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the minister, but it is very clear that members attending virtually are purposely opening their mikes to add comments, which is not allowed. The Speaker has ruled on that many times. The same member has done it throughout question period today, and I would ask you to speak to that member to ensure that there is decorum in the House and that we are all allowed to listen to the speeches that are happening.

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

Yes, I do appreciate that sometimes it is an accident, and sometimes it is on purpose. I would remind members who are listening in through video conference to please keep their microphones on mute.

The hon. minister.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, we also heard a clear consensus during the consultations that the additional 10-day reflection period in the end-of-life regime was not serving its intended function, but instead was prolonging patients' suffering. In fact, many practitioners and families of those who had gone through the process of MAID shared heart-wrenching stories of patients who had stopped taking their pain medication for fear of losing their capacity to consent to the procedure. This is certainly not the outcome that Parliament intended in 2016.

I will go into more details about some of the safeguards the bill provides, but before I do, I want to say that, given their expressed concerns around safeguards, I do not understand the frankly irresponsible actions the Conservatives are taking in delaying this legislation, knowing full well the risks that could result in Quebec from a legal void. If we reach the court deadline and nothing has changed, there will be no adequate safeguards in Quebec for those whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. In addition, Quebeckers will not be able to benefit from the modifications that we are making to reduce suffering. I am unsure how the Conservatives can accept that as a possible outcome if their main concern is safeguards.

In the Carter case, the Supreme Court found that the criminal prohibition of medical assistance in dying violated section 7 of the charter and could not be upheld under section 1, because a permissive structure with appropriate safeguards would achieve the legislative purpose of protecting vulnerable persons. The court expressly stated that it was the role of Parliament and provincial legislators to perform the difficult task of creating the regulatory regime that properly balanced competing societal interests.

The government believes that it is possible to respect the autonomy of Canadians in deciding when they have suffered enough while helping people with disabilities live full lives. I know that challenges exist when it comes to providing the care that everyone needs and the access to that care, but the solution is not to prevent people who are experiencing intolerable suffering from making an autonomous choice about one of the most fundamental aspects of their lives.

I am confident that the choice to provide enhanced safeguards for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable is the prudent way to expand eligibility for medical assistance in dying. The safeguards for this group of newly eligible individuals are designed to ensure that sufficient time and expertise are devoted to the assessment of their request for medical assistance in dying. In these circumstances, it is essential to ensure that individuals are informed of other means of alleviating intolerable suffering because, ultimately, it is a question of putting an end to a life that could have lasted for many more years.

I know this is an important issue for Canadians, and I am committed to working with all parliamentarians to begin the parliamentary review of the medical assistance in dying regime as soon as possible after Bill C-7 has made its way through the parliamentary process. I have no doubt that the issue of advance requests will be an important part of that review.

I believe that Bill C-7 is one important and prudent step forward in ensuring greater respect for the autonomy of a broader category of Canadians who are suffering intolerably. It carefully balances competing interests and values in a context where reasonable, informed experts and stakeholders disagree in significant ways. It makes only the necessary changes to ensure a MAID regime that is responsive to our experience to date, and respects the charter rights and freedoms of Canadians to autonomy and safety.

In Carter, the court stated, “that the risks associated with physician-assisted death can be limited through a carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards.” That is exactly what Bill C-7 continues to do.

While a subject as important as MAID requires and deserves Parliament's appropriate consideration, I want to underscore the importance of timely and efficient consideration, and the political consequences of the Conservatives' current obstructionism. The Conservatives' delays will have a very real and direct impact on the individuals who seek to alleviate suffering through access to MAID. Individuals in circumstances similar to Audrey Parker's will face the awful choice of ending their lives early, rather than risk losing the capacity to consent.

Others will continue to face the procedural burden of mechanisms that families and practitioners have overwhelmingly told us are burdensome and no longer necessary. Still others who are experiencing intolerable suffering, and who have received all the necessary medical diagnoses, will remain ineligible as a direct result of the Conservatives' delay tactics.

On this last point, let me be clear about the dangers created by the Conservatives' attempts to run out the clock on the Quebec Superior Court's extension. There is absolutely no assurance that a Quebec court will grant further extensions to the current suspension of invalidity. If that suspension period expires without the passage of Bill C-7, Truchon will come into effect in Quebec without the benefit of the protections, standards and inclusions of our proposed bill, and without the benefits of our proposed bill to reduce suffering for people in the current regime.

I do not know why my official opposition colleagues feel no need to meet the deadline set by the Superior Court of Quebec and are delaying the passage of this legislation. Their actions are prolonging the unnecessary suffering of Canadians. I encourage them to allow the bill to make its way through the process so we can meet the courts' December 18 deadline.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to hear from the Minister of Justice at third reading of this bill.

Like us, he knows that his right to speak must be upheld and that it is his duty as minister to exercise that right. That is exactly what our members are doing and what all members of the House of Commons can and must do.

This morning, I heard on CBC that a Liberal MP wants to vote against the bill. It makes no difference to me whether he votes for or against it. However, what I find disappointing is that this MP, whose primary job is to speak in the House, has not done so. Did his Liberal colleagues tell him to keep quiet because he is not on their side? If so, that is very disappointing.

My question for the minister is about the fact that he is accusing Conservatives of delaying the study of the bill when we are simply adhering to the Standing Orders and exercising our right to speak.

This bill was introduced in the House in February. We understand that a pandemic occurred, but that has nothing to do with this. However, I would like the minister to explain why his government shut Parliament down by proroguing it, which meant that we had to start all the parliamentary work all over again when we came back. If the government had not prorogued Parliament, it would have saved 24 days of parliamentary work. We could have picked up where we left off in February and we would have gained 24 extra days.

The minister is to blame for the fact that we do not have enough time. What is worse, even if we were to accept the fact that the government decided to suspend the work and close Parliament, why did the minister waste seven days after the opening of the House and the throne speech? Why did he not introduce the bill as soon—

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

I have to give the minister an opportunity to respond and allow others to ask questions.

The hon. minister.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I obviously disagree with my colleague's strategy, which consists in filibustering in the House of Commons to delay this bill.

If the Leader of the Opposition is unable to control his colleagues on the religious right who are still opposed to this bill, I would invite my hon. colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent and the other Quebec MPs in his caucus to exercise their leadership to express the will of Quebeckers and Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I think you will find that the bigotry the member is expressing toward people of faith is unparliamentary and he should be asked to withdraw it.

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

I am sorry, but we are getting into debate.

We have two minutes left for questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Joliette.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister.

He knew that the Conservative Party would delay this debate. The House Leader of the Official Opposition said that members have the right to speak and have a duty to do so. We obviously know that they are filibustering to prevent this bill from passing before December 18.

The minister knew all of this, though. The bill was first introduced back in February. Why did he not take all of this into consideration to ensure that we could meet the Superior Court's deadline and that the bill would be ready to go before December 18? Why did he not act sooner? Why did the government prorogue the House?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to inform the House that I am a man of faith, and my faith is always a part of everything I do.

In response to the question from my hon. colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and I did our best to ensure that the bill would be studied as quickly as possible.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Justice for his work on Bill C-7. I also thank him for his speech today, particularly for the emphasis he put on the ending of unnecessary suffering. This is something I very much hear from my constituents, and particularly their concern about loved ones having to go early before they lose competence at the end of the life.

My question for the minister is this. Given the concerns in the disability community about possibly facing a terrible choice, sometime in the future, between a life without the supports they need and perhaps choosing medical assistance in dying, which I do not believe the bill would actually allow, will the minister support the NDP proposal to have a national program that would lift all people living with disabilities out of poverty so that they do not face these stark choices and instead get the support they need to live lives that are equal with other Canadians'?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, my thanks to the hon. member for his question and his work on this bill as well as others.

I share the interpretation of this law, which I think is the correct interpretation of this law. It is about autonomy and it is about making enlightened choices. Within the context of criminal law, we have tried to build those choices into the bill. I also share his very deep concern for making those choices real choices, by supporting people with disabilities. At every turn as a parliamentarian, I have done that. I will continue to do that and I will work with the hon. members to try to improve the very real challenges that people with disabilities face in their day-to-day lives.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to attempt to bring this room to a place of peace. I know this is a very sensitive topic and we all have our ideas and our passions. Some of us have different ideologies on this, but I think it is beautiful that these heated debates are happening because that is what is required to work through an issue like this. Life is not simple. It is complicated. When there are challenges, they require us to be real and work through our emotions and ideas until we come to a place where there is agreement and a compromise that everyone can agree on.

Throughout the debate, I have heard my party being accused of filibustering or trying to delay passage of this bill. I find that heartbreaking, because this issue has to do with life and death. As was stated many times, death is final and irreversible. It can impact people beyond the scope of those who are seeking it.

Rather than attack the motivation of other members on this topic, I would like to ask all members to continue in our debates, understanding that this is a very complicated issue. We can have discussions that are real, but avoid comments like the minister made about the religious right, which I found offensive.

Hope is a journey. It is not something that can be bought like going through a drive-thru to buy McDonald's. Hope is something that accumulates over time and for different reasons, for different people. It requires a huge scope of places that the person who is struggling for hope goes through. It requires a full course to arrive at the doorstep of someone who is suffering, and sometimes it arrives unannounced.

One thing I find troubling about this bill, any time I have debated on it, has been the perspective of hope. Hope is the most sacred gift we have as human beings. Life is not perfect. We go through life struggling, but the beauty of the human spirit is our determination to triumph over adversity. We see things like this among so many people who come close to committing suicide. Look at someone like Christopher Reeve: a famous actor who played a superhero. Everyone looked to him as Superman, yet because of a riding accident he lost many faculties and contemplated suicide. With support in his very limited way of living, he was able to live out the rest of his life. His ability to overcome his challenges made him a greater hero.

I am not saying this to belittle suffering. When I was 17, my father was taken to emergency in the hospital because his heart had stopped. His heart had been beating irregularly and at one point it actually stopped. When I arrived at his hospital room I saw his slippers, but he was not in his bed. His roommate said to tread quietly as my father was in an urgent emergency crisis. I stepped away. I was frightened, as a 17-year-old. Because his heart had stopped beating, they were taking him for emergency surgery.

The most traumatizing aspect of this experience was witnessing him jolting and screaming in pain because of the electric shocks being applied to him. It was a very painful experience to watch. When I was talking with my father about this bill recently, he said that in those moments he counted about 10 shocks before he passed out.

He said it was the most tormenting experience he had had in his life, that it felt like someone had taken a hammer and was beating him down, and that he could not stop it or control it. He said that the only reason he fought through this to stay alive was the thought that he had three daughters to take care of. That gave him hope. Fortunately, he lived on. He has a pacemaker, and he is all right.

The reason I bring this up is to acknowledge that sometimes suffering is painful. I picture my father going through that every day to the point that he really wanted to die, and I am applying this to those who are legitimately seeking MAID. That law passed. This was debated in 2016 as Bill C-14, and it passed. The purpose, as I perceive it, was to offer a dignified death to those who would seek it.

I have great concerns with some of the details on safeguards removed from this bill. I fear that this removes access to hope even more. We have heard many experiences and stories, some coming from the justice committee. The time that is required when a person is suffering from something like a spinal cord injury can be more than 90 days, for them to regain that trajectory of having hope and wanting to live. Granted, it would be very painful and I would never want to be in that situation, but there are those who overcome.

This bill would allow a person who has just suffered a life-changing spinal cord injury, for example, to end their life just 90 days after the catastrophic event that caused the injury. When a person is at their most vulnerable, experiencing unimaginable stress, a doctor could be forced to suggest ending their life. That is the option there.

From my understanding from doctors and witness testimony on the record at the justice committee, suicidal ideation after a catastrophic medical episode is very common. There is the possibility, with good care and support, that these transient suicidal thoughts could often take longer than 90 days to overcome. In recent weeks we have heard many of these stories of people who went through serious personal tragedy, but who have ended up living amazing lives and doing incredible things on the other side of it.

I would like to share the story of David Shannon. David suffered a spinal cord injury in a rugby scrum when he was 18 years old. He shared that after his accident, he lay in bed, close to death more times than he wishes to contemplate. He went on to have a career in a non-governmental organization with leadership, and he practises law. He said:

... I have accomplished a lot in my life. I've crossed our great country by the power of my wheelchair — coast to coast. I've jumped out of an airplane at over 25,000 feet.

It explains all the things he was able to do because he chose to live.

My fear is that removing these safeguards will create that truncation of hope that requires that full course for a person to regain their trajectory. If that is truncated, the big question is, “What if?”

This morning, in a CBC article, about a member of the Liberal government:

He said he worries the resulting legislation may not address people who are "transient" in their wish to terminate their lives, such as someone who has a permanent disability or who now needs chronic care. Those feelings of anguish can fade over time as they adjust to a changed reality, he said.

I think, with a bit of time, people may come around to the fact that there are reasons they want to live.

I want to thank my colleagues for their heated debate. I appreciate where they are coming from, but I would like to ask each one to take a moment of deep thought and ask if it is not worth protecting and safeguarding hope so that people have that opportunity through a longer time period to rediscover hope and have a chance to live past that darkness and move into a place of light.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, I have spoken, as well, to many doctors. I have also read the testimony, as she has, of many patients, and I must admit I am quite troubled by the suffering I hear about from individuals who state that, once they made the decision to proceed with medical assistance in dying, the additional 10 days of waiting was excruciating and that it caused unneeded suffering for them and for their families. Not all safeguards are being removed in the bill proposed by the government: far from it.

I would like to hear from her specifically on that one safeguard that is being removed. It is a short period of time, and I believe that once a person makes the decision to proceed with medical assistance in dying it would be very difficult, as she described, to go back on that and transition away from that idea, as she suggested.

On that very concrete point, I wonder if she has any comments for the House.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member across the aisle for bringing the tone of the dialogue in the House to a place where we can agree to disagree.

I fully appreciate what the member is saying. There is a law that was passed to protect those who would like to seek assistance in dying. When it comes to rights, one of the most complicated things in a democracy is asking when one right trumps another. That is the difficult aspect of this. I believe that hope is a right of some sort, at the expense of complicating access to hope for those who I believe should have that full course to access it. I am concerned about those as well.

I appreciate her question, and I hope she understands where I am coming from.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I am wondering something. I am noticing that those of us who have put our hands up are not getting noticed. I am hoping that you are also taking questions from Zoom.

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

I have to take questions from all sides of the House, and that is exactly what I am doing.

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Madam Speaker, nothing in Bill C-7 removes the fact that a person applying for medical assistance in dying has to have a condition that is incurable, that they have to be in a state of irreversible decline and that they must also be facing intolerable suffering. In some of the examples the member posed, it did not sound like those people would qualify legally for medical assistance in dying. I would like to hear her comments on that.

Furthermore, I understand her Conservative Party colleagues' concerns about persons with disabilities. Will she join with us in the New Democratic Party and call on the government to provide a federal benefit of up to $2,200, so that people with disabilities are not having to make this terrible choice and can lead a life with dignity and have the supports necessary to lead a fulfilling life?

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very grateful for the sentiments and the passion that the member has for those with disabilities.

I believe that, if we had not prorogued Parliament and spent more time discussing things such as support for the disabled community, which resonates with my mantra of hope, the tone of our debates would be more fulsome and reflective of making passage for hope to flourish in our discussions.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her impassioned speech.

At the justice committee, we heard evidence about the inadequacy of the 90-day reflection period, that such is not sufficient time to access meaningful palliative care and other supports. Can the member speak to the need to have a lived experience in order to make a truly informed choice?

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the narrative needs to go towards acknowledging and choosing the path of better living. More access to care is also a very valuable piece of this dialogue. On many levels, because it impacts so many of us, not just the person who is suffering but our families as well, this area could have been discussed more.

[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 Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, The Environment; the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Natural Resources.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to rise in this House for this extremely important discussion, and I want to thank my hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for the excellent work he has done on this. These are very difficult questions, and I am glad I was not the point person to have to do the heavy lifting. My colleague and I may not always agree on all the points, but I respect his incredible integrity.

I point out he comes from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, which is the classic way that English people have misrepresented the first nation languages. It is worth pointing out, because one thing that really struck me as a concern in Bill C-7 was the fact that we are dealing with a Quebec court decision that came very shortly after we brought in legislation the first time.

One thing I found with the previous government, and definitely with the current government, is the fact that if there was a first nations case, they would appeal. In fact, I do not ever remember the government not appealing a court decision about a first nation. However, with this ruling we had to rewrite the law of the land. I understand we are on a deadline, but it would have been reasonable, given the complexity of the issue, for us to seek clarification from the courts to make sure the courts had interpreted this properly and then brought it back to us. It is something I find concerning.

I am again going to do a bit of a comparison, which is a standard form of parliamentary debate, between two options. One option is the issue of Bill C-7 and the other option is, say, a first nations issue. Let us say it is that of the St. Anne's residential school survivors. The government has just admitted it spent $3.2 million in court fees fighting against the rights of people who have suffered some of the most horrific abuses ever recorded in Canada, such as child rape, forced abortions on children and torture done for the kicks of the staff at St. Anne's, who were electrocuting children.

This is all documented. In fact, it was documented in 10,000 to 12,000 pages of police evidence gathered by the excellent work of the OPP and brought to court. The federal government obtained all that evidence, and under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, it was obligated to do two things as the defendant. It was obligated to prepare a list of the history of abuse that happened in the residential schools, and then obligated to present all the evidence.

In the case of St. Anne's, the government decided to lie and said there was no history of abuse at St. Anne's residential school. It also said there were no records showing any abuse. Meanwhile, it was sitting on 10,000 pages of police and witness testimony that named some of the most powerful church people in the land. Father Arthur Lavoie, Bishop Leguerrier and Bishop Belleau were all named, along with all manner of other abusers.

This was really important because this started under a previous government, when Peter MacKay was the justice minister and Bernard Valcourt was here. I know members are going to wonder how this relates to the issue here. Under Bill C-7, some of the Conservatives are talking about a fear of creating two tracks of justice: a set of justice for one set of citizens and a lower set of justice for other people.

I am not convinced of the Conservatives' arguments on Bill C-7, although I have thought a lot about whether they have actually met the test of creating two tiers of justice. Anyone could look at Canada for two examples of injustice. We could look at, say, middle-class white people in St. Paul's, Toronto. What is their standard of justice and receiving justice in the courts compared with that of any indigenous person in the country? I think we would all agree that we certainly have two tiers of justice.

We had that with St. Anne's. When I approached former minister Valcourt about the documents, he said he had no obligation to turn over documents, when he did. This set the really ugly issue in motion. When the Liberal government came in, we thought it would fix this and it did not. In fact, it hunkered down.

The government paid $3.2 million, under the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, to go after the survivors of St. Anne's, who had their cases thrown out because the government lawyers lied in hearings. At the bottom of the Order Paper question, it says the Government of Canada prefers negotiation to settle these. I would agree.

In fact, on November 26, in a Timmins Today article, Christina Tricomi, from the minister's department, said, “The Government of Canada remains committed to negotiating a resolution outside of the courts”. Of course we would expect this to be the government's position, but that is not true. In fact, I have a letter here dated October 15, 2020, from the law firm of Dionne Schulze, asking the government to sit down and negotiate a solution. The government said no; it would meet them in court.

Elders Without Borders, representing Edmund Metatawabin, Evelyn Korkmaz and other St. Anne's survivors, asked the government to sit down and finally end this. The government lawyers said no; they would meet them in court. Also, on December 1, 2020, lawyers from Dionne Schulze wrote to Catherine Coughlan at the justice minister's office asking her to please go to the case management settlement so they could talk about finding a solution.

To go back to Bill C-7, we are talking about two standards of justice. One of the standards of justice in the country is that lawyers are legally obligated under their professional conduct rules to find a way out. It is a lawyer's ethical duty to “compromise or settle a dispute whenever it is possible to do so on a reasonable basis, and...discourage the client from commencing or continuing useless legal proceedings.”

How useless are these legal proceedings?

In Ontario's Superior Court, where the government continues to lose against St. Anne's, the attorney general for Doug Ford's government came forward to support the survivors of St. Anne's, while the minister, who represents the riding of Toronto—St. Paul's, sent her lawyers to fight them. The Ontario attorney general agreed that these were cruel and unusual tactics. Under their professional obligations, lawyers are called to find a solution, and we had the survivors asking for solutions.

I remember talking to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and begging her to meet with the survivors and end this vicious, vindictive campaign again them, and she met with them. I was there as the survivors cried. The survivors said they just want to settle and meet with the government, and the minister promised this. The next day, they were back in court.

Angela Shisheesh, a powerful survivor, addressed this. I will quote her, and I am not making this up. On APTN, June 18, 2018, she said, “She lied to me, literally. She lied to me. It hurts. It’s just another abuse”. This is about the survivors of St. Anne's and the abuse they have seen under the current government. They talk about the re-abuse they have suffered in having to come forward to talk about the horrific crimes they suffered and in being told by lawyers that they are making it up and there is no evidence.

I go back to Bill C-7 and the Truchon decision. The government seems to have gone further than the Truchon decision, so let us do a comparison. Let us talk about St. Anne's.

Under the obligations that were ordered on January 14, 2014, the government had to bring forward the person of interest reports on the perpetrators of the child crimes. It was obligated to do that. It was ordered again in January 2015 to do that and it refused. The Government of Canada decided to protect the perpetrators.

What does that mean? For Father Arthur Lavoie, the government provided a two-page report, when in fact it was sitting on 2,472 pages of crimes against children. It had a case thrown out, case H-15019. The subject was a victim of horrific child rape, and the government decided to fight this survivor all the way from Ontario hearings to the B.C. Superior Court to shut down his right to just get justice. The only crime he committed was being an indigenous child.

When we talked to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, she said she would make it right and call Edmund Metatawabin, the leader. The only time she ever called him was to force him to testify on the stand for her lawyers. This man is a Governor General's award winner. When we talk in Bill C-7 about two tracks of justice, I ask if anyone can imagine a Governor General's award winner from downtown Toronto being hauled to court by the minister and forced to testify over the fact that he spoke up against horrific child abuse, rape, electric torture and the abuse of children at St. Anne's that still hangs out like a dark cloud.

I know members are asking why we are talking about comparisons on a bill like this on a day like this. It is because once—

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

The hon. member will have to finish during the questions and comments. We are already over his time.

The hon. member for Kenora.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from northern Ontario for sharing his insight and a very thought-provoking speech.

I would like to speak directly to Bill C-7. As the member noted, this is a very complex issue for many people and a very complicated debate. It is for me as well.

Part of what informs me in this debate is hearing from my mother, who is a palliative care nurse in Kenora. I have spoken with many of my constituents, who have different views on this issue, and I reconcile that with some of my own beliefs. This all speaks to the need for a wholesome and robust debate on this issue, and on this side of the House, we are quite concerned that when the government prorogued Parliament, it effectively limited the opportunity for debate.

Does the member have any comments on that?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the work my hon. colleague is doing as a new member of Parliament representing a great, very large region that is very similar to mine. I am honoured to know his mother is a palliative care nurse. She is doing God's work.

I am surprised the government did not get a review from the courts. I am surprised it prorogued with the issues before us. However, one of the concerns I have, given the strategy of some of my friend's colleagues, is there has been a lot of misrepresentations. I am very uncomfortable about a lot in the bill, but they talk about people who want to have a life where they can jump out of helicopters or planes, and climb mountains. We all want to do that, but the bill only applies to those who are intolerably suffering, facing and incurable illness and in an advanced state of decline. That is very limiting.

My concern is whether we have enough of a reflection period, but they make a claim that this is going to be widespread. Also, I find the term “assisted suicide” very offensive, and it is being used in the House. It is a misrepresentation.

My hon. colleague brings a lot of good points to the House and I thank him for that.

[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 appreciate the member's comments in regard to the issue of calling this “assisted suicide” versus “assisted dying”, because words do matter. They are very important when we talk about this type of legislation. It has a residual effect on the population. It is not an easy decision, and we all know that.

Can the member expand on the importance of words? Also, I was not 100% clear on what the member has decided. What is he doing on this legislation?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, words do matter. I am glad the member is giving me this opportunity. Words like “reconciliation” matter. Reconciliation has to mean something. There is no such thing as reconciliation in Canada as long as the member for Toronto—St. Paul's is hosting her vindictive, vicious campaign against survivors of some of the most horrific abuse and the justice minister is spending millions of dollars fighting the survivors of St. Anne's residential school.

There is no such thing as reconciliation in this nation, and there is no such thing as honesty or integrity from a government that made promises to survivors, looked them in the eye and then turned around and sent its lawyers after them. Until that is rectified, it is all just talk over there.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for standing up for his constituents every time he is in the House.

As he is aware, our colleagues, the member for Elmwood—Transcona and the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, have recently put forward a proposal to the government to try to get a federal benefit for persons with disabilities. That would free up provincial resources so we can start adequately funding things like palliative care and important medical supports.

I would like to hear some of the member's thoughts on that proposal and why it is important to make sure that persons living with disabilities have a life worth living and have the supports to lead rich and fulfilling lives.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that. I was taught as a little altar boy, “What person tells of someone hungry, go thou be filled”.

It is hypocrisy to stand in the House and say that we care about people with disabilities when they are living on such marginal incomes and in such poverty, without support. We do not have the proper medical supports to give them hope. If we are going to talk about hope, it is going to be grounded in basic financial supports.

I honestly thank my colleagues from the New Democratic Party for making sure that this issue of the poverty people who have disabilities are facing is actually addressed.

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

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise again to speak on the bill.

I want to recognize that we have come a long with the bill. At every turn, we have had the disability community step up and be the voice that we needed to hear on this particular bill.

The Senate, the other place, has started a pre-study and has heard from over 85 witnesses. While they brought varying perspectives from across the country, all of them were opposed to the bill and asked that the government go back to the drawing board and come up with a bill that would protect the interests of all Canadians, particularly the interests of disabled Canadians.

As we have seen in the news today, the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River has said that he cannot, in good conscience, support the bill, and I know that there are other members. The minister responsible for disability inclusion, when she was in the other place giving testimony, said that she was concerned, and that she was hearing from the disability community about safeguards and how this will affect those folks who live with disabilities. We know that we are on the side of the angels with this one. We know that we are working to protect the vulnerable.

We heard extensive testimony from Mr. Foley, who gave compelling testimony from his hospital bed. He stated that he had been informed several times of the fact that he was eligible for MAID. This was not something he requested. He wanted to live, and that was something that he definitely was not requesting. Yet, it was being suggested to him that he was eligible for it. This is not something that is happening somewhere else, it is happening right here in Canada.

We want to ensure that folks who live with disabilities in this country are included in our society, feel included in this society and in no way feel that they are a burden to our society. Therefore, we need to ensure that those Canadians are offered the same rights and freedoms as all Canadians and not given a separate stream.

In the case of an able-bodied Canadian on their worst day thinking that it all should end, they are offered suicide prevention techniques. Canadian society has worked very hard to ensure that suicide prevention is something we value. It is well funded. There are hotlines across the country and 24-hour counselling services available. As a Canadian, I am proud that we have a suicide prevention regime in this country that is effective. It is one that all of us can be proud of.

However, with the bill before us, we see a change in direction. We see two classes of Canadian citizens. There are the able-bodied Canadians, who are offered suicide prevention on their worst day, and there are the disabled, who are then eligible for MAID. Now, I am not saying that in every case one would be offered that, but it changes the sentiment.

My friend Taylor has cerebral palsy. She lives her life independently, but she lives in a wheelchair. I have had the opportunity of helping her out with her wheelchair, which gets very dirty in the winter, especially around Ottawa with the salt and slush everywhere. Once a year, in the spring, I bug Taylor and say, “Taylor, it's time to wash that wheelchair of yours”. I'll load it in my van and haul it over to the car wash. It is a motorized wheelchair, and we pressure wash it and get it looking nice and clean again.

However, Taylor got a cold two winters ago, shortly after the MAID legislation was introduced. After a few days of not feeling well, the batteries on her wheelchair were dwindling and she was struggling with life in general. She went to the hospital, and she was asked if she needed oxygen, would she like to have it.

She asked herself what they meant by asking if she needs oxygen, would she like oxygen. She needs oxygen to live, so if she needs oxygen, by all means give her oxygen. That is the sentiment that many folks living with disabilities are concerned about. That is the experience of my friend Taylor, and that is the experience of Mr. Foley and many of the advocates who we heard from over the last few months.

The Liberals have been in a self-made rush to pass this legislation. The member for Timmins—James Bay, who spoke before me, asked why the bill is here when it was a junior court in Quebec that struck down this law. Why was there no appeal of this?

Most Canadians do not consider this, and our parliamentary system is not as delineated as the American system, but in Canada our executive branch lives inside of the legislative branch. Sometimes this leads to a feeling that the government and the legislature are one and the same. That is not the case. The legislature passes the legislation and the executive, the cabinet, is called to enact that legislation. They do sit in here, and they are also members of the legislative body, but they are to do the bidding of the legislature.

What is frustrating about this situation is that the ink was barely dry on the original euthanasia regime in this country when the court struck it down. The executive branch, rather than appealing that and abiding by the wishes of this place, of the entire legislature, chose not to appeal. While that was a legal decision for them to make, and they were able to make that decision, given the fact that they are to do the wishes of this place, it would seem to me that they should have appealed that decision just on the basis that this was the law that was passed in this place recently.

It was hard work. I remember it took a while to get the first bill through, and we worked to get the balance right. I remember specifically the health minister at the time and the justice minister at the time stood up repeatedly, while members from their own party were saying this did not go far enough, and they continually held the line and repeated, “We got the balance right”.

I remember at the time pointing out that I thought we were at the top of a fairly steep, slippery slope. Little did I know that we would be here four years later. We are picking up speed on the slope, no doubt.

The minister says that we have to abide by this self-imposed deadline to some degree. There is some frustration around that as well because of the fact that for 24 days in this Parliament we did not have the opportunity to have a debate because Parliament was prorogued. That was not the Conservatives' tactics. It was definitely not the Conservatives' tactic to prorogue Parliament. That was the Liberals.

The other thing that is really frustrating about prorogation is that the bill then dies and comes back. They had already heard from the disabilities community before prorogation that the bill was incomplete, that it did not have protections in it and that it did not do what it was saying it was going to do. The Liberals had the opportunity to fix the bill during the time of prorogation.

They had the opportunity to fix the bill and to make amendments to it. They could have saved face. They could have made these changes on their own over the time of prorogation, but they chose not to. They chose to reintroduce the same bill, and here we are. There were 85 witnesses in the Senate, and all of them are opposed to the bill. The bill should be sent back. We need a new one that recognizes the needs of disabled Canadians.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, having been mentioned by several previous speakers, I thought I had better actually say something here.

Let me say, first of all, that I have not been silenced by the Liberal Party, and nobody has told me not to speak about this issue. I have to thank the whip for making this a free vote. A lot of members know some of my position, but this is, I admit, difficult legislation.

There are, obviously, very strong competing interests. There are people who think we should go further and allow more people to access medical assistance in dying, and there are a lot of people who say this has gone too far, particularly people in the disabled community, but we have to draw the line somewhere. I fully recognize that is the case, and I think the Minister of Justice had a very difficult job, a job that he was forced into by the court decision, but he had a job as to where to draw the line.

Some of us may quibble with exactly where that line was drawn, but I want to ask the member opposite if he does not believe that perhaps some of the issues we are discussing here cannot be revisited when the court-ordered review of the legislation comes up in the coming year.

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

Madam Speaker, the legislative review the member mentioned is an important thing, and that is why it is so frustrating that the government did not appeal the lower court decision out of Quebec. This review is coming up, and the Liberals wanted to make all these changes to the bill. Many of the changes that are proposed in Bill C-7 have nothing to do with the Quebec court decision. They have put those things in there. The legislated review could have accommodated some of those things, if that is what the government wanted to do.

To use the court as an excuse is extremely frustrating to me, given the fact that it was the government's job to appeal that decision.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I heard the member for Peace River—Westlock express the sentiment, which I know is shared in the House, that people with disabilities should be able to live full lives on an equal basis with all other Canadians. The problem has been that this remains a sentiment, and people do not actually do anything to make that a reality.

I wonder if the hon. member will support the NDP proposal to establish a national income support program that would lift all people with disabilities out of poverty.

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

Madam Speaker, that sentiment is shared across the House, and I just want to recognize my friend Joel. Joel and I started school together in grade three and we went through all the way to grade 10 together. He often comments on my Facebook page now. He is very proud of where I have gone, and I am very proud of him.

He has been a Cutco salesman for a long time. I do not know if members have ever used Cutco knives, but he has been a Cutco salesman for a while. He works at Walmart. He is fully integrated into our Canadian society, and that is something that I am very proud of. In his larger extended family there is a whole army of people who work to make sure that Joel is an included part of our society, and I am very proud of Canadian society in that folks like my friend Joel enjoy full participation.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have this opportunity to ask my friend a question following his excellent speech.

In terms of this question raised, rightly, by the NDP of full inclusion for people living with disabilities, it is not just about benefit programs, although those have an important role to play. It is also about access to employment, and I think we are going to get to hear at some point from the member for Carleton about his work on this issue.

Does the member have a comment about the important work of ensuring that we remove barriers to employment, volunteering and community involvement for people living with disabilities, rather than the approach of this bill, which is to create a special track toward death.

Finally, I wonder if my colleague could follow up on the comments from the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River that this will be a free vote for members of the Liberal caucus. It is exciting to hear this, and I hope that other members of the Liberal caucus will actually be willing to take advantage of it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am excited to hear that free votes are becoming contagious and are spreading across this place. I look forward to hearing if the NDP, the Green Party and the Bloc will also be having free votes on this.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will not be voting in favour of Bill C-7. It is poor legislation that will negatively impact many of the most vulnerable Canadians. If passed, there certainly will be more court challenges that will only dilute the few protections that are currently in place.

I know the disability community, as has been mentioned in previous speeches, has been very upset about the bill. It feels that it will make it even more vulnerable than it currently is.

I was reading a report this morning of one of the witnesses at the Senate committee. I would like to read a few of the comments from Neil Belanger, the executive director of the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, an indigenous cross-cultural disability organization that has provided a variety of disability programs and services across Canada for the past nearly 30 years. This is what he said:

Our organization stands with all disabled persons’ organizations in Canada in the call for MAID to be limited to end of life.

The Indigenous peoples of Canada experience a higher rate of disabilities than that of the non-Indigenous population, higher rates of suicide, lower health status and life expectancy, higher unemployment and poverty rates, overcrowding in homes and they are overrepresented in the justice system....

Despite these conditions, the individuals our organization serve do not describe themselves as “suffering with a disability,” ... Persons living with disabilities may become more isolated, demoralized, experience a loss of hope and the desire to escape, and in their vulnerable state they can be more susceptible to the option of MAID.

He goes on to say, “Logically the first response would be to change those systems, increase health and disability resources and services, ensure adequate financial support for Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons.”

Finally, he says:

Bill C-7 isn’t about providing adequate supports for persons living with disabilities. With the proposed removal of the end-of-life criteria, it perpetuates the continued negative portrayal of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples living with disabilities as having lives not worth living because of that disability....[It] perpetuates the idea that these people are of less value and therefore worthy of a state-assisted death.

Those are very harsh words. As a Métis, I am concerned about the very negative impact the legislation will have upon the indigenous people who are likely the most vulnerable population in Canada in every respect, whether it is addictions, suicide, incarceration, the list goes on.

In British Columbia, we see it in Vancouver in the Downtown Eastside and all throughout. I have met with parents who have children with disabilities and they are also very concerned about the message that is being sent, which is stated in the legislation, that life is not worth living, that it is unbearable.

A couple of weeks ago I watched a video of a fellow who I had never heard of before. His name is Nicholas James Vujicic. He was born in 1982 with a rare disorder called phocomelia. He was born without legs or arms. He does have about a six-inch foot coming out of his torso. I listened to him speak to a large group of prisoners. He was inspiring hope. He founded an organization called “Life without Limbs” and also “Attitude is Altitude”. He has spoken to hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people. His message is that no matter what our circumstances, we have something to give and to help other people. We need to be promoting this message about overcoming challenges. In Canada, we have some great examples.

I think of Rick Hansen, who is in a wheelchair. Years ago he did an around-the-world tour. The best example we have and who is known worldwide would be Terry Fox. I am a teacher by profession and every year we go with students on these walks in support of beating cancer.

I am also concerned that it is just a matter of time before MAID will be offered to people struggling with mental health challenges. Why would I not believe that? The 10-day wait period is being removed. Reasonably foreseeable death is being removed. Approval of two medical practitioners is being removed. Disability is being added as one of the conditions, and so forth.

I mentioned last week that one of my assistants in Ottawa told me about her grandmother, who was 100 years old, a vibrant, social woman and in good health for her age. As we faced COVID-19 this year, with the lockdowns and necessary safety precautions, she became isolated, depressed and no longer wanted to live. She requested MAID and it was granted to her. I suppose that being 100 years old is reasonably foreseeable, but for all of us we will die.

I know people are struggling this year with depression and loneliness. The Canadian Association for Mental Health has released information showing that four times more people this year are having suicidal thoughts than previous due to COVID.

On Monday, I met with Dr. Taylor Bean and Maple Ridge councillor Chelsa Meadus to discuss the impact of regulations on the mental well-being of many of her patients and the big increase of anti-anxiety medication. This is what we are facing right now as we are coping with COVID.

In the summertime, I talked with the director of one of our local funeral homes. He told me of the concerning increase he saw of people who had died of suicide and in demographics he had not seen before, 30- and 40-year-olds who had lost work or maybe lost their business. I have no doubt that as time moves on, mental anguish will be added to the list as we continue to broaden the legislation, which we seeing right now.

Mental anguish unfortunately is a very human condition. It can be caused by the loss of a loved one, bankruptcy or news of a terminal illness. Dr. Frank Ervin is a doctor at Ridge Meadows Hospital. He posted this on Facebook recently. He said, “Physicians now have the power to end your life even if you are not dying....I personally have had a patient undergo MAiD who would have had a very good chance of living 5 or more years. The quality of care and the decision to administer MAiD was very questionable in my view and when I contacted the coroner to request a review was told that these cases are not reviewable by the coroner's service. Where is the oversight?“

I think of my wife Marlene. She was diagnosed with cancer and went through a very difficult time. She had five operations. It has been five years and she is cancer-free—

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

On that very positive note, I must interrupt the hon. member for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Kenora.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his tremendous insight and thoughts on this topic. One of the things he mentioned was some of the challenges and vulnerabilities facing indigenous communities. As a member representing a northern Ontario riding with 42 first nations, three distinct treaty territories and the Métis homelands, it is something I and our region understand quite closely.

I wonder if the member can speak to some of the opinions he has heard from indigenous communities as they pertain to this legislation.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am the member of Parliament for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge. The largest ethnic population, surprisingly, in this area is indigenous people and Métis. What I am hearing, at least from my perspective, is very pervasive right across as far as dealing with mental health and these challenges. The representative of the disability organization for indigenous people stated well his perspective of indigenous people with disabilities.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, I have enormous respect for my colleague opposite and for his views even if we disagree.

As a point of clarification, I would like to ask if the member disagrees with the very idea of medically assisted dying or with this bill. The bill we have put forward is to respond the Quebec Superior Court's decision. It is in order to improve the legislation based on the experience of patients.

We are not talking about the very principle of medical assistance in dying; we are talking about improving the existing law. I wonder if he could just clarify. Is he against medical assistance in dying all together?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, my concern is that we are not putting the emphasis on palliative care. We have put MAID, which is legislated through the Supreme Court, into the Canada Health Act and so it is required to be accessible and funded right across Canada. We do not have that for the general population for palliative care. Only about one-third of Canadians have access to that.

I previously mentioned a lady with whom I had a conversation. She was in hospice dying of cancer. She has now passed. I asked her how much pain she was going through and she said that she was going through no pain whatsoever. Pain can be totally controlled under palliative care as well as mental anguish.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague has raised many important issues on how we defend the rights of people with disabilities. I wonder if he can pick up on the issue of giving people alternatives. I was quite struck by the comment from one of his colleagues from B.C., another member of our caucus, who said that people had a right to hope

We have to give people access to that right, that ability to hope, to see they have alternatives in front of them. Members who talk about the importance of choice should consider the range of options people have, such as wanting to really have that option of choosing to live and how we can make that option real and meaningful for people who want that available to them.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is really important that people who are facing end of life be given those options. Counselling and supports are really important. One of the amendments we requested, which was defeated, was to increase from 90 days to 120 days for people going through mental challenges. We do not have that support. We need to increase the supports for people in the situations of end of life.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, let us deal with the elephant in the chamber here. There are reasons to support euthanasia despite 21st-century medical advancements, but to protect the vulnerable in our society from mistreatment or abuse, we must provide the service ethically and monitor its delivery scrupulously. However, what we are debating here today is exactly the opposite of that.

Bill C-7 seeks to amend the medical assistance in dying legislation by eliminating various safeguards on how and when the service gets delivered, with apparent disregard of any scrupulous requirement. Some of the offensive changes to end-of-life decision-making would include removing the 10-day waiting period between a MAID request and its administration, allowing for no reflection or opportunity for consultation on alternatives during this critical period, and proceeding without immediate consent, thus removing the final opportunity for someone to change their mind.

The bill would also create a two-tracked approach. The first track is someone whose death is deemed reasonably foreseeable, a term which is subjective and lacks effective meaning as the Truchon case in Quebec revealed. The second track would allow individuals who do not meet the reasonably foreseeable death criteria to receive MAID. At least these individuals are granted the opportunity to reflect for 90 days.

I voted against the second reading of Bill C-7 because it would not adequately protect Canadians from harm, and the gap presented is way too wide to be bridged. Unfortunately, as I predicted, the government refused to accept any reasonable amendments submitted by concerned stakeholder groups. I will, therefore, be voting against Bill C-7 during third reading as well.

As has been said many times, the bill would create pathways to end of life that would significantly impact the disabled, without sufficiently supporting the alternatives. Also, it does not include enough consideration for the rights of medical professionals to refuse to provide death as a service. Doctors know their patients' most intimate details. They have the professional experience to make suggestions on treatment and to know how to refer to other experts when necessary. However, because of MAID, medical professionals, such as Dr. Mai, who is a stroke neurologist, have expressed concerns that doctors are not being encouraged to suggest the best treatment. They are being obligated to suggest and provide a treatment that they may not believe is the right one for any patient. They are being told to kick their conscience to the curb.

In this regard, I will quote someone who, according to the CBC, has two law degrees and a master's degree in health policy, and has helped develop health law and policy for the WHO and several governments. He has practised medicine in Canada, Africa and the South Pacific. The member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River shares our mutual concerns of how the bill addresses the issues faced by those who are transient or undecided in their end-of-life decision-making.

In a CBC article, he stated, “My biggest concern, as someone who has spent my whole life trying to avoid accidentally killing people, is that we don't end up using MAID for people who don't really want to die”. As someone with a medical background, he says he feels that it is morally incumbent upon him “to stand up when it comes to issues of health and life and death”.

Perhaps this concern is something that should be addressed through a review. It has recently been said in this chamber that any legislation that is introduced in Parliament requires a thorough review, and that is especially true for bills that are literally matters of life or death. Bill C-7, which seeks to expand medical assistance in dying, is one of those bills.

Members of the justice committee have heard first-hand from disability advocates vehemently opposed to Bill C-7 and its rapid expansion of MAID. They argue that it amounts to a “deadly form of discrimination”, making it easier for persons with disabilities to die rather than live.

It is shameful that in the Liberal government's rush to pass the bill before December 18, it continues to neglect to address the legitimate concerns being raised by persons with disabilities and medical professionals.

The Conservatives are focused on ensuring this type of legislation includes safeguards for the most vulnerable in our society, and for the conscience rights of physicians and health professionals. I have previously outlined these reasonable amendments we have introduced to reinstate such balances the government has removed, so I will not re-list them here. However, I shall repeat that it is essential the government begin a separate and comprehensive parliamentary review of the original 2016 MAID legislation and the state of palliative care in Canada. It is critical that this review analyze how the government's MAID legislation negatively impacts persons with disabilities.

I might add, such a review could have taken place over the summer. Instead, the Liberal government shut down Parliament to hide from its ethical scandals, only to return and introduce this legislation from scratch again. What larger lapse of moral fibre and ethical decision-making could there be?

Furthermore, it pains me to find this bill comes at a time when vulnerable Canadians, such as those in palliative care, are more isolated than ever. Because of the pandemic, they could be left alone in their room for days. These measures that are aimed at saving lives have left them looking for options, as in the case of Ms. Nancy Russell, a 90-year-old long-term care resident in Toronto, who received MAID simply because she did not want to go into another lockdown, according to a media report.

Fleeing from the Communist regime in Shanghai, my father struggled to provide for himself and his family by mastering the art of directorship in the early film industry in Hong Kong. He later worked in Nigeria when I was a teenager and only returned home after suffering from a major stroke. I witnessed his struggle first-hand to live and attempt to regain independence with little familial resources or societal help. My father was a fighter. He also overcame cancer and other major medical problems before dying in his sleep in Saskatoon one early Sunday morning in the nineties. If the Bill C-7 MAID legislation had existed back then, he would have been under inhumane pressure to lessen the burden he was imposing on his family, even though his death was not reasonably foreseeable. I for one am grateful for his strength and determination to stay alive so that I could reciprocate the care he provided me when I was young. He was able to live long enough to hold my brother's firstborn, his very first granddaughter, only months prior to his natural death.

Medical assistance in dying is a very complex issue and evokes strong emotions. Recognizing we need more time to review the bill, my Conservative colleagues and I repeatedly proposed increasing the number of meetings dedicated to reviewing the bill and hearing from witnesses. Unfortunately, each time the Liberals refused.

Canada's Conservatives will continue to highlight the flaws in this bill, which threaten the lives, rights and dignity of people with disabilities long past this unfortunate legislation. We will continue working to protect vulnerable Canadians, especially persons with disabilities, when the next assault on their dignity arrives. Canadians deserve as much.

Like many of us here, my constituents have approached me in earnest to express their opposition to Bill C-7 and MAID. They ask for their MPs to stand in defence of the rights of people with disabilities, highlighting that it is a discriminatory policy and that Canada should not stand for such discrimination and must not extend euthanasia to people who are not dying. They asked me to stand in defence of the conscience rights of doctors, hundreds of whom are protesting Bill C-7 as being against their oath to protect—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. member. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[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, it is a false argument to talk about process being the reason why this legislation is not set to ultimately pass.

I do believe this bill reflects the many years of debate, discussions and consultations that came from the Supreme Court of Canada to the Superior Court of Quebec's most recent decision to literally tens of thousands of Canadians in all regions of our country.

Does the member believe that the Superior Court of Quebec does not have the confidence of the Conservative Party to support this legislation, or at least to allow the legislation to come to a vote so that it could be dealt with before we break?

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, my Zoom session has exhibited some problems, and I did not fully hear the member for Winnipeg North. I recognized his voice, and I kind of get what he was asking. I will try my best to answer.

I am so privileged and honoured to live in a country that respects the rule of law. Our judicial system is structured in such a way that there is a hierarchy. That is why governments and individuals could appeal to a higher level of court. The Quebec court decision could have been appealed to the Court of Appeal, as well as to the Supreme Court of Canada—

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

We will have one other member ask a question before we have to interrupt. The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right about the importance of conscience protections for physicians, which is why we brought forward amendments to this bill to provide for conscience protections.

The members across the way say, “Nothing to see here. No need for such protections.” They point to a recognition of conscience protections being in the preamble of Bill C-14. Could the member speak to that?

Second, I would note that the Carter decision, paragraph 132 states:

Nothing in the declaration of invalidity which we propose to issue would compel physicians to provide assistance in dying.

Yet that is happening in Ontario, violating the charter rights of physicians.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, in my speech I alluded to my father's experience escaping from Communist China. It is a country that does not provide freedom of conscience for its members.

In Canada we do, and that is why we treasure our freedom so much. We must not force people to act under duress and against their conscience.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member will still have a minute and a half left for questions and answers the next time this matter is before the House.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from December 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the third time and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up this question, the hon. member for Steveston—Richmond East had a minute and a half remaining in his time for questions and comments. We are at the tail end of the five-minute period for questions and comments, which is probably enough time for one good question and response.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, following your advice, I am up for a good question.

During the debate, we have heard a lot about palliative care. I am wondering if the member could share his thoughts on the important role of palliative care. Could he share what he believes, and how he believes the federal government could be playing a stronger role in that area?

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for asking such meaningful questions.

If I recall correctly, a former member in the House Mark Warawa actually suffered from terminal cancer. He was not able to receive palliative care for a number of days before the end of his life. It is critical that this country provide that support to Canadians who are facing inevitable death. The country could do more to provide options for Canadians facing immediate death.

We know that health care is delivered by provincial governments, but the federal government could actually negotiate more with provincial governments to provide support and funding, and perhaps set standards in palliative care for Canadians in general

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to talk about such an important piece of legislation.

I will be the first to say that I did not really have a position on this particular legislation when it came before the House four years ago. I supported it back then, because I strongly believe that people deserve a choice and that choices are important, especially when it comes to one's health and medical condition. Since then, I do not even remember if I spoke to it the last time it came before the House, but if I did, I did not do it from the informed position that I find myself in now.

I want to talk about Don Tooley, my father-in-law, who passed away three days ago. Don suffered from cancer, and he died at the young age of 67.

Don grew up in Plevna, Ontario, and for those who do not know, Plevna is north of Highway 7, in my colleague's neighbouring riding. He grew up in a hunting and fishing lodge in Plevna that his grandfather had started in 1944 right after the Second World War had ended. Don loved life. He was a tough person. He knew how to hunt, fish and do all those “manly” things, at least they would have been considered that way back in the day, but he was also very soft, caring person. He was very artistic and loved things with a great degree of passion.

However, just over a year ago, during the 2019 election, Don was diagnosed with colon cancer and he went through the process of being treated. He wanted nothing more than to live. He was so young, he wanted to live and he wanted to be there for his grandchildren. In the new year, in January, he had a colonoscopy and was declared cured of cancer. Don thought that he had the rest of his life ahead of him. The reality is that it did not go quite as well for Don. By July of last year, he had been experiencing some challenges with his mobility and ended up in the emergency room in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic during the first wave, where he was told that he had a tumour in his brain. Don went under immediate surgery. He was asked what he wanted to do, and he said that he wanted surgery to have it removed, because he needed to spend more time with his grandkids. Don had the tumour removed on a Friday. The doctor was going to let him out of the hospital once he could walk again. He was so determined to walk that he walked out of that hospital on the Monday morning, 48 hours after having surgery on his brain.

Don continued to live life, he continued to spend time with his grandkids, but everybody kind of knew where it was going and what the inevitable was. I think Don even did, although he really never talked about it. In the fall, about a month and a half ago, he had radiation, which helped his situation a bit. Then two weeks ago, Don ended up in the hospital again, because after a routine CAT scan it was determined that he needed to go back to emergency right away.

My father-in-law headed back to the hospital where he was informed that he had very few choices: he could be operated on again with great risk and not knowing how that would turn out, or he could let nature take its course effectively. Don chose to be operated on again, because he wanted nothing more than to live. His objective was to live for another day for his grandchildren and to be there with them, because he loved spending time with them.

Don was operated on about three or four days later. It did not go as well as it had the first time that he was operated on, in the summer. Don ended up being told that he was not going to walk again. He was given the grim reality that the cancer had grown to a point where the doctors could not operate on it in its entirety, they could not remove it all and that he probably did not have a lot of time left to live.

Don still did not give up. He wanted more input into this. He wanted to talk to other people. He refused to give in to the idea that it could end.

About three or four days after that, the doctors had a very frank conversation with him and they said, “Don, this is the reality of where you are in your life, and what is going to happen.” Once he fully grasped that and fully understood, I believe that is when Don came to terms with the reality of his course and where his life was going. That night, just over a week ago, he suffered a massive heart attack. I truly believe it was because his heart just realized that he was not going to live much longer.

The next morning, my wife and my mother-in-law and my brother-in-law went to the hospital because Don wanted their advice as to what he should do. At that point, Don realized that the fight was over, that it was time to give up; and he chose to not be treated. The doctors said that they could treat him for the heart attack, but the likelihood of its being effective was very small because of the blood thinners and the effects of everything else going on in his body. Don chose to let nature take its course.

For seven days, Don was in palliative care in the same hospital. I had the opportunity to see him once. Because of COVID restrictions, it is very hard to get in and out of the hospital. Don suffered during that time. That is the reality of the situation. He wanted to live so badly, but when he knew that his time was coming to an end, he recognized that was the case. I do not even know if Don would have chosen medical assistance in dying if that had been an option for him. He certainly did not have 10 days to have the reflection period, and I do not even know if he would have chosen that. However, what I know is that he did not have a choice.

The reality is that I strongly believe coming from a more informed position now, yet not as informed as so many other people, that people need that choice. Our medical system has advanced so much in this world, doctors fight to keep people alive at every opportunity they can. I do not blame the doctors for being against parts of this legislation and some who are against all of it. That is what they are there for. Doctors are there to fight and keep fighting to keep people alive, but sometimes it gets to the point where that is not going to happen.

If he, and so many other people like him, had made that choice, Don could have prevented seven or eight days of his own suffering. For a year, he fought to live and the last seven days he realized that it was not going to happen. If anybody is put in that position, I strongly believe that they should have the choice to make that decision.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague Kingstonian, a son of Kingston whom many Kingstonians would be proud of today. I only have a comment, and my colleague had some kind comments for me a few days ago.

I want to thank him for giving space in this legislature for people who are having a tough time with this decision in regard to the legislation. He has demonstrated that, in the heart of hearts of every human being, there is this strong drive to live. In most cases, we deal with legislation where we are trying to upbraid bad behaviour, whether with the Criminal Code or regulations on white-collar crime. In this case, we are looking at legislation that actually would cause the state to intervene in someone's life.

I want to thank the member for breathing some air of reasonableness into this debate, and for giving people space to have conflicting positions on this.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree. I started my speech by saying that I am at a very different position on this particular legislation than I was four years ago when it was debated in this House. I do not harbour any ill feelings toward people who take a different position from me on this.

The reality is that, from what I have seen, I only ever envisioned people who did not want to fight for life, but I have seen with my own eyes somebody who fought as hard as he possibly could until the moment that he knew that it was not possible anymore. I thank the member for his comment, and I respect the position of every member of this House. I am certainly not here to try to convince people differently from their own position on this. It is hotly contested. There is a lot of energy behind this debate, and there are a lot of different emotions behind it, but I just wanted to let people know where I am on it and where my position has evolved from.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and extend deep condolences to him and his wife and family on the loss of his father-in-law. Certainly, the stories that we have shared and how emotional and difficult this subject is for each and every one of us is really clear. For myself, I came to the position of strongly supporting the bill when we dealt with it in the last Parliament, and the issue was made clear to me by many constituents who raised the issue with me.

Sue Rodriguez, who took the matter all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada so many years ago, was a resident of North Saanich, within my constituency, and there is a huge support base for her personally and the cause she raised. Therefore, in the time remaining I want to ask the member: if we do not deal with this issue, vote and get it to the Senate before we rise for Christmas, what is the legal effect for the people of Quebec, where the Truchon decision will take legal effect and there will be a void of the law for end of life in Quebec?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would rather speak not so much about the legal effect, but the effect on the individuals who will be in these positions like my father-in-law was just a few days ago. There will be more people who suffer, quite honestly. I want to make it very clear that the doctors and the nurses in Kingston General Hospital did everything they could for my father-in-law to make sure that he was as comfortable as possible, but there was still a great degree of pain there. By not passing this legislation today, we are potentially putting ourselves in a position where other people will suffer the same way, and that is just not something that I want to see.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for doing this. It is something I know I could not do just a few days after such a tragic event.

I was hoping he could talk about those 10 days, because at the justice committee, when I was on it, we heard about suffering. I know it is difficult to ask this of my friend, but could he talk about the 10 days and the difficulty, knowing that there is that period of time that one cannot escape from the legislation?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, even if Don had been able to say on day one that he wanted this procedure, he would not have been able to confirm that, if he had lasted 10 days. During that 10-day period, there was an incredible amount of hardship and pain that he went through. There were, obviously, his loved ones around him who also felt a great degree of pain and suffering, but for the individual in that position, I witnessed it first-hand, and it is nothing that I would ever want to see somebody go through, if they chose not to go through it.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we rise to discuss a matter of the gravest importance, literally a matter of life and death.

It has been my practice as a member of Parliament to favour the expansion of free choice and individual human agency in all our decisions. I believe that government's principal role is to protect the life and liberty of its people, and that doing so means allowing people to make decisions for themselves with minimal application of force, in essence to minimize force and maximize freedom.

I am the finance critic and I have applied that principle to all economic matters, such as how can we allow individuals to make their own decisions with their own money. Here we talk about a matter that is more important than money, the matter of life and death.

I look upon this bill to determine whether it extends or withdraws individual freedom and free will from the people to whom it will apply. As I look through the practical application of the bill, it is my view that the bill will do more to withdraw individual choice and freedom than it will to extend it.

Let me begin by quoting the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, a physician and Liberal member of Parliament, who said:

My biggest concern, as someone who has spent my whole life trying to avoid accidentally killing people, is that we don't end up using MAID for people who don't really want to die.

Medical assistance in dying was supposed to be exclusively for people who did want to die, who, having been presented with all the worldly alternatives, chose death. We have a member of Parliament and former physician on the government side saying that the bill will have the effect of forcing people to a decision they would not otherwise make.

This is not just a theoretical issue. Allow me to read the story of Mr. Roger Foley. This is from a CTV story, which states:

Foley suffers from cerebellar ataxia, a brain disorder that limits his ability to move his arms and legs, and prevents him from independently performing daily tasks.

Roger Foley, 42, who earlier this year launched a landmark lawsuit against a London hospital, several health agencies, the Ontario government and the federal government, alleges that health officials will not provide him with an assisted home care team of his choosing, instead offering, among other things, medically assisted death.

In other words, we have a state health care system to which everybody is forced to pay and of which everyone is forced to be a part, from which it is impossible to avoid receiving care because paying out of pocket is illegal, private insurance is not allowed for essential care. When this gentleman then went to the care, the only care the government would allow him to have, it said that it could not provide him with that care, but what it could do was end his life, that he could pack it in, that he could just give up.

That is not free choice. That is the state effectively compelling a man to end his life or face endless years of unnecessarily turmoil that could have been avoided were appropriate care allowed. For that reason, I cannot support the bill.

I add my voice to thousands of people from the community representing persons with disabilities. The government is often fond of quoting the UN. The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities was “extremely concerned about the implementation of the legislation on medical assistance in dying from a disability perspective. I have been informed that there is no protocol in place to demonstrate that persons with disabilities” deemed eligible for assisted dying “have been provided with viable alternatives.” Mr. Foley's case is a prime example of that.

Therefore, those most vulnerable are not given a choice, but rather they are funnelled toward one inescapable outcome and compelled by the state to end their lives at threat of merciless and unnecessary suffering. Rather than providing these people with the care that would mitigate their suffering and fulfill the wishes of a happy life, they are told they have no choice but to end life altogether.

I will quote from disability groups, 72 of which wrote a letter to the government expressing their opposition to the bill.

I will start with Krista Carr, the executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada, an organization that works with Canadians with intellectual disabilities. She stated, “Bill C-7 is our worst nightmare.... The community of Canadians with disabilities and their families have long feared that having a disability would become an acceptable reason for 'state-provided suicide'.”

There are the words of Dr. Goligher, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto, who said, “Bill C-7 declares an entire class of people, those with physical disabilities, as potentially appropriate for suicide — that their lives are potentially not worth living. Indeed were it not for their disability, we would not be willing to end them. I cannot imagine a more degrading and discriminatory message for our society to communicate to our fellow citizens living with disabilities.”

We are meant to give a voice to all Canadians, but most of all to the voiceless, and the voiceless are speaking through their advocates. Seventy-two groups have spoken out against the bill, the dehumanizing way with which it treats persons with disabilities and the manner by which it robs them of their free will and human agency. I fear that it adds to the quiet and sometimes unspoken narrative of certain politicians and opinion leaders who suggest that persons with disabilities do not have the same worth as others, a concept I find repulsive.

The lives of persons with disabilities are every bit as valuable and precious as the lives of the rest of us. No legislation should ever pass through the House or the next House that devalues the precious gift of life that persons with disabilities should have the right to enjoy. No bill should rob people of their free choice and human agency to live on in peace and dignity should they so choose.

This bill does not contain any protections against scenarios where people who are conflicted might try to suggest upon a person with disabilities that they should simply accept death. We put forward an amendment to ensure that a case like Roger Foley's would never happen again by banning medical professionals and other caregivers from raising the issue of assisted dying with a patient rather than letting the patient raise the issue himself or herself. The government opposed that.

The government is removing the requirement that there be two witnesses to sign off before someone dies. It is removing the 10-day waiting period, which allows people, who might be in a burst of urgent distress, to consider and reconsider their decision, a decision that we all know is absolutely irreversible, the most irreversible of all decisions, and that is to end one's life.

Why the government would oppose such protections that would ensure the patient truly does consent to end of life I do not know, but I do know one thing and will conclude on this. We must protect the freedom and choice of all our people and we must recognize the dignity and worth of every human life.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has spoken a lot about dignity, but when I ask questions about providing a guaranteed livable basic income, something being fought for and supported by the disability community to ensure people can live in dignity and have those choices, I am often met with no response.

I wonder if my colleague can share with me whether he supports a guaranteed livable income, accessible and affordable social housing and other supports required to ensure people can live in dignity and do have choices.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we do support basic dignity in life for all people. When it comes to persons with disabilities, there are two ways that this can happen. Many persons with disabilities prefer to earn their income through work, and have the ability to do so. That is a statistical fact. A million Canadians with disabilities have jobs; 300,000 of them have severe disabilities and have jobs.

We should reform our benefit and tax system to let them keep more of their wages. Right now, if people with disabilities get jobs, in many cases they lose more in clawbacks and taxes than they gain from wages, effectively banning them from the workforce. Many in the disability community have spoken out against that.

I think of Mark Wafer, who is 80% deaf. He could not get a job when he was a kid, so he hired himself, started a business and opened five different Tim Hortons locations that employed 130 people with disabilities at full wages without government assistance, doing the same work but at a higher quality than the rest of his workforce. He had some of the highest performing Tim Hortons locations in the country by all the metrics, proving that people with disabilities have something to contribute, not just their lives but in their livelihoods. We should encourage and reward that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, and I have said this before, that members of the Conservative Party are standing up and supporting persons with disabilities. However, I am concerned when language gets added that death is being compelled by the state, which is not true, and that the Conservatives will stand up for the voiceless.

I would like to ask the hon. member about the voiceless person in the hospital bed who has suffered through cancer, who is sitting there for 10 days in excruciating suffering. Where is the voice of the Conservative Party for that person?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first question is with respect to the compulsion of death. I will read a quote, “My biggest concern, as someone who has spent my whole life trying to avoid accidentally killing people, is that we don't end up using MAID for people who don't really want to die” That is the Liberal member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, himself a physician. The member should ask his Liberal colleague why he thinks this bill could ultimately compel people to die even when they do not want to.

Where is the support for people suffering in a hospital bed? We believe in strong palliative care so people receive the end-of-life care that permits them to live out their final days in dignity and to make a true choice rather than being compelled by a lack of alternatives.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

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

Can he tell us what the Conservatives' position was on the Truchon case and why the Conservatives took that stance?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to be honest, unfortunately, I did not hear the question, so I cannot answer it.

Conservatives would have appealed the Truchon decision. The government can appeal the ruling and even take it as far as the Supreme Court.

The government decided not to do that, however. It could have. That would have given all Canadians a chance to understand their rights in this regard.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what results from this bill is truly a matter of life and death. The decisions we make here always have some ripple effects on others, but this bill needs to be about protecting the rights of some of our most vulnerable.

It is from a place of deep conviction that I speak on Bill C-7. My hon. colleague for Thunder Bay—Rainy River echoed some of these concerns and convictions in a CBC article written by Kathleen Harris. He states:

I don't like voting against my party, but as someone with a medical background and somebody who has dealt with this issue over the years a lot, I think morally it's incumbent upon me to stand up when it comes to issues of health and life and death.

I find it heartbreaking that we are putting doctors and legislators in this position. As the member opposite suggests, the primary issue is protection of conscience rights for medical professionals, health care providers, and the rights of hospices and other institutions not wanting to cause the death of people in their care.

As a Maclean's editorial explains, many doctors who may be willing to expedite the natural process of dying, given their traditional role to relieve suffering, would likely be threatened by the qualitative and ethical distinction between hastening a death that is drawing near and ending a life that is expected to persist. This is a very valid point.

When one senator asked an expert witness whether it was true that medical professionals were leaving because of the lack of conscience rights, Dr. Leonie Herx replied that she knew of doctors who took early retirement for reasons of professional integrity or because of their own personal moral compass.

Do we want to harden the hearts of those who, because of their very own world view, cannot comply? These are people who feel that MAID is a betrayal of their professional commitment to save lives, a betrayal of their faith or a betrayal of their conscience.

A CBC article says it rather well:

Rather than instilling hope and helping to build resilience by focusing on options for living, health care providers will now be asked to discuss an early death.

Many helpful voices express serious reservation with this bill. Constitutional lawyer and author Don Hutchinson explains that this bill does not provide a sound structure and protection for all people, especially those living with disabilities, chronic pain or mental illness.

The executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada told us that for the disabled community, Bill C-7 is their “worst nightmare”. Their “biggest fear has always been that having a disability would become an acceptable reason for state-provided suicide.”

Colleagues may say that will never happen. Many of us never thought that we would be here debating same-day MAID, yet here we are. We are hearing stories that are happening today even with the current legislation.

Palliative care consultant Dr. Herx described the experience of Candice Lewis, “a 25-year-old woman with a developmental disability and chronic medical problems”. When she entered the ER, a doctor approached her mother and suggested that she consider MAID for her daughter. She refused. The doctor promptly told her she was being selfish.

The disabled community has made it very clear, time and again, that they have suffered at the hands of our current legislation and they feel directly targeted by this new MAID legislation, as no other community is directly referred to in the proposed amendments to the current legislation.

Despite the holes in the current legislation adopted in 2016, the government is pushing for a further expansion to the eligibility of MAID at an alarming pace. Krista Carr, executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada, explains that the community of Canadians with disabilities and their families have long feared that “having a disability would become an acceptable reason for state-provided suicide”.

According to the Council of Canadian Academies, without its reasonably foreseeable natural death provision, Canada would become more permissive with respect to medical assistance in dying than any other jurisdiction in the world.

There are also the voices of Lemmens and Krakowitz-Broker. They explain that, unlike in any other country in the world, the new bill fails to explicitly require that all reasonable options be made available and tried before allowing physicians to end a patient's life. Even when that decision for MAID is made, we absolutely need to reserve the right for people to have a change of heart.

Dr. Leonie Herx, the past president of the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians and chair of the division of palliative medicine at Queen's University, sees life stories every day that show how people can change their minds with respect to MAID. She refers to one beloved patient who arrived at her clinic asking for MAID, but quickly abandoned his quest after being assured of his worth and that he was not a burden.

Recently, the member for Vancouver Granville asked the justice minister in the House why the 10-day reflection period and reconfirmation of consent were waived in this proposed new legislation. She said that the removal of these safeguards was not required by the Truchon decision: the ruling the Liberals chose not to appeal.

I noted the member's comments with great interest, given that she was the former justice minister who brought forward the original bill to legalize MAID in Canada, known as Bill C-14. In response to her questions and other critics, the current justice minister replied that the 10-day waiting period only increased suffering and that he had even heard of people who stopped taking their medications during this period.

Ensuring that all Canadians have access to care needs to be our top priority to address the needs of suffering Canadians. Death cannot, and should not, be the only choice to end excessive suffering. I have talked to many health care providers who say that we have the tools and resources here in Canada to alleviate all kinds of suffering, and even to alleviate the anxiety of individuals facing imminent death.

John Diefenbaker once said, “Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong.” Canadians value our right to think freely, to consider our thoughts and opinions, and to change our minds if we so choose. The elimination of the 10-day reflection period and the requirement to reconfirm consent takes this option away from those facing this difficult situation. How are we preserving the right for people to change their minds when we waive the waiting period? It would seem that this bill makes the choice for MAID to be final and irreversible.

That is not what is reported in the “First Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada, 2019”. It says that 3.6% of the patients who made a written request for MAID subsequently withdrew that request. While that may not seem like a very significant number, to put it into context 263 people out of the 7,336 people who completed written requests later chose to change their minds because they had the opportunity to do that in the 10-day waiting period. That is 263 lives. Every single one of them deserved the right and the freedom to make that decision. This piece of legislation before us would take that right away from individuals.

Experts speaking to the Senate committee on Bill C-7 discussed how, in the proposed bill, MAID eligibility would apply to treatable diseases where death was not imminent. This is also where the bill adds a 90-day assessment period. It is no wonder that people with disabilities or chronic illnesses feel threatened by this legislation. This addition is especially concerning when people are faced with a sudden, dramatic life-changing illness or disability, as it often takes much longer than three months to gain a renewed perspective.

It is no wonder the former health minister, Dr. Jane Philpott, and the member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville wrote an editorial for Maclean's urging Parliament to proceed with caution, and questioning whether there was enough medical and social evidence to even understand the implications of these potential changes.

Saying that we are at a defining moment in history by approving this bill without further amendments is not an overstatement. I am thankful for the opportunity to highlight these very real risks, and I want to urge the Liberal government to address the bill's serious challenges.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

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

I would like to start with a comment. My colleague seems to be saying that having one of the world's most progressive policies on medical assistance in dying is a bad thing. I disagree. We are a progressive society and proud of it.

To clarify my colleague's and the Conservatives' position once and for all, I would like to know if he is against the idea of medical assistance in dying or if he is against the amendments and our government's response to the Quebec Superior Court's decision.

I believe the amendments we have proposed will improve the existing act, and I would like my colleague to tell us if he is against the idea of MAID itself, which, I would remind him, is the law currently in effect here in Canada.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for the record, I want to restate that I voted against Bill C-14 when it came before the House four years ago. We have come to a difficult spot as a country and as a nation when we diminish the value of life.

I believe that all life is important. This piece of legislation, based on the ruling in the Truchon decision in Quebec, goes much further than that ruling suggests. It also does not provide the proper protection for conscience rights for medical professionals. It takes away that 10-day reflection period. That is an important note to make because as I said, 263 people changed their minds during that 10-day reflection period. This bill removes it. This is same-day death being proposed by the Liberals.

If someone is having a bad day facing an illness that they think is unbearable and degenerative, and for whatever reason they request medical assistance in dying, they do not have the 10-day reflection period to see whether that was the right decision. Under this legislation, that decision would be permanent and final.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Provencher for standing up for life and promoting life. I have lamented the fact that the Liberal government has had a singular focus on facilitating and speeding up death rather than promoting life.

I notice that my colleague did not have time to address the issue of palliative care, which is something the Liberal government promised four years ago it was going to champion. The Liberals suggested they were going to invest $6 billion in palliative care, then we found out that it was going to cover the whole country. Then they said it was over 10 years. They promised it in 2015, 2017 and 2019. There has been virtually nothing done to make sure people who have painful diseases and are suffering are still able to live lives that are productive and joyful.

Perhaps my colleague could comment on that, and the role palliative care should be playing in delivering support for these people who need our support.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Abbotsford who I know shares the passion, as I do, that life is important and that we need to value life right from conception to natural death. That is an important fundamental principle that needs to be enshrined here in Canada.

I recently sat with local doctor Curtis Krahn and his wife at an event, and we talked about end-of-life and dying. Shortly after I was elected, a few years back, my mother was very ill with cancer. Dr. Krahn's wife, who is a registered nurse, was one of the chief palliative care providers in our community. She was very gracious with my mother. At the event, Dr. Krahn told me clearly that we have the resources, the tools and the medications to make people comfortable in end-of-life situations and when people are suffering. Often people become quite anxious as they are approaching their final days. He said, “We can even take away their anxiousness. We have medication that can do that as well.”

I know that the government made some very lofty promises when it came to palliative care, and it failed miserably to deliver on those promises. Seventy per cent of people, when given the option of being provided with palliative care, would choose to live rather than to accept MAID.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to enter into the debate.

This is the first time I am speaking to Bill C-7. What drives my desire to speak today is the fact that we would take away the safeguards that were rightfully put in place to protect people from quick decisions and unnecessary death in Canada. This weighs on me because there are two individuals who I have witnessed pass away.

A good friend of mine, Scott Clarkson, had cancer. At thirty years old, he had a child, but unfortunately he succumbed to cancer. I watched as the angels who work in palliative care cared for him until the end. I think about the extra days he had with his son and his wife, but I know that Scott had tough days where it seemed pretty dark and bleak.

However, the bill, with its current safeguards, could catch an individual on a bad day, even without facing certain death, be it cancer or other conditions. On an off day, Scott might have been convinced that medically assisted dying was something for him. This is where I have an issue with the government not taking the amendment to include the 10-day reflection period. We all have tough days, but without the safeguard of a pause, there may have been times when Scott would have succumbed to the pain and made a different decision, and that would have resulted in less time with his wife and son.

This is why we need to revisit the bill. I encourage the government to please consider some of the reasonable amendments that we put forward, such as the 10-day reflection period.

The other person I think of is standing over my shoulder today, my father, who passed away during the summer. There were times when it must have been tough for him, but he was always a very positive man and believed that there were better days ahead, so much so that the month before he passed away after battling cancer for three years, he renewed his driver's licence for five years. He was always thinking that there were positive days ahead and that there were reasons to live. However, there were tough days, and I wonder what would have happened if the bill had passed in its current state and on one of those days my father might have made a different decision.

He was mentally stable right to the end and had great palliative care with some great doctors and nurses, but on a day when maybe family was not around, he might have thought it was right for him. My father died the same month as his 75th birthday, and without that reflection period, he may not have enjoyed that birthday with his family, and they may not have had that extra time with him.

These are the reasons I have entered into the debate today for the first time, to speak against Bill C-7. Primarily it is the issue that, at committee, no amendments were taken, and if we do not have safeguards in place there will be abuse. There will be individuals who decide to end their lives because of whatever pain and suffering they are in. That pain and suffering might end for them, but it passes on to their loved ones who are left to deal with those feelings. That is why we need to pause, go back to committee and draft a bill that has safeguards.

Other members have talked about all the people who have grave concerns about this bill and what it would do for people with disabilities. I think it is ironic that we are in the middle of a pandemic and we are asking health professionals and all Canadians to do whatever they can to save lives, and in the meantime parliamentarians are debating and are going to be passing, but hopefully not anytime soon, the opening up and lessening of restrictions on medical assistance in dying.

My colleague, the member for Cariboo—Prince George, is championing the cause of a national 988 suicide prevention hotline. This is not a partisan issue, and I encourage all parliamentarians to get behind that initiative. We would like to save the lives of people who are maybe finding themselves in tough situations. That is a noble cause.

We are talking about helping people, and unfortunately some are people with mental health issues who are committing suicide, we are trying to prevent those losses and the pain of those families. However, at the same time we are making people's ability to get a medically assisted death that much easier. I just cannot agree with that.

This is the first time I am speaking to the bill because of the personal nature of this. This is a tough subject. I entered into the debate so that we could understand who we represent. I represent Saskatoon—University, and the majority of my constituents want the safeguards to stay in place.

In conclusion, I implore the people of Canada, if they think we need safeguards, to contact their Liberal member of Parliament and in a respectful way please ask for some of the restrictions that were in place to be reintroduced on the bill. If we can come together in a respectful manner and find solutions, that is what Canadians want to do in the trying year of 2020, to find ways to bridge the gaps in our society. If we do not do this, if we do not consider other people's opinions and other views, I believe our society would be headed in the wrong direction, and the division we have seen in other parts of the world would come to Canada.

I plead with all reasonable people on the other side of the aisle to pause this. Let us go back to the drawing board, and let us make sure we have the safeguards in place to protect lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. There have been a number of speeches today of people sharing some really personal stories about what they have gone through, what friends and family have gone through. It really adds to the debate, and I want to thank the member for that. It shows that we all come from different perspectives.

Perhaps this goes a little into the weeds on this, but the Parliament of Canada has legalized medical assistance in dying, making it a medical procedure. A lot of the concerns that have been raised by members of the Conservative Party are with respect to what doctors are doing. Is that not the role of the province and the role of the colleges to regulate those professions? Should that not be left out of the hands of the federal Parliament?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that is what our role is as federal members of Parliament, to debate important legislation like this.

In my office right now, I got an email this morning from a Dr. McCartney. He was talking about his desire not to be forced into this medical procedure, as it was called. Not to get into the weeds, but there are many other physicians who have deep issues with MAID. If we do not get this right, we may see physicians leaving the practice that they love, and Canada will be a lesser country because of it.

We need all hands on deck, especially during—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the very heartfelt sharing. I know that this is a difficult topic, and many of us have experienced these life and death situations in our own lives, so I want to acknowledge that.

I do have a question, though, and it goes back to dignity. The last member I posed a question to, asking if he supported a guaranteed livable income, accessible affordable social housing and everything else needed to live in dignity, referred to getting a job. I think it is important to recognize that, for example, 70% of adults with intellectual cognitive delays live in poverty.

I want to ask the member if he is supportive of giving people what they truly need, so that they can live in dignity, including the items that I mentioned.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to answer that.

I believe that we want the same thing. The dignity that comes with a job and the inherent benefit to the individual to fulfill their potential is what we should all strive for. We know that people who are in tough economic situations may consider MAID, and we need, as a society, to push back. If it is a warm meal or a warm bed to sleep at night, that is what society should be providing people who are a little down on their luck, but we also, not to get too economically driven in our defence of having these restrictions, do understand that we need a growing economy to help more individuals out of poverty.

With poverty comes tough decisions. That is why I, as an individual member along with the Conservative members, have been voicing our concern around the direction—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for one more short question and response.

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to share, first of all, my deep condolences to the member, as I know his family well.

I just want to quote a little message I got in an email yesterday. This individual says:

I watched your speech in [the House] yesterday and was touched by it. My dad was 93 and home alone with cancer in 2005. He was so bad I wished for euthanasia. Got him in palliative care and he improved immediately. They gave him 3 weeks of improved quality of life. When things got very bad they made him painfree until he died. It changed my mind on euthanasia.

That is just a comment, again, about the dynamics of the government making a commitment to improving palliative care, yet we are not seeing that take place.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the importance of palliative care is there, and we have spoken at great lengths that we need to make it accessible across Canada. My father actually passed away in Yorkton, where the member who posed the question is from, and I must say the people there provided outstanding palliative care that granted us a few more days with dad. That is what he wanted, and we need to make sure that is available in all parts of Canada. That is what is missing. The current government likes to virtue signal in one direction, but we see what MAID is with no additional amendments at committee. The Liberals are putting their heads down and believing that they know best for this country. I vehemently disagree with their position on this.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion.

In the usual form, if members of recognized parties present in the House wish to request either a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them now to rise and indicate so to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, September 23, this division stands deferred until later this day at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the third time and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, September 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of C-7.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #39

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Before we proceed to the next vote, we will pause briefly to allow employees who provide support for our operations to substitute each other for safety purposes. In doing that, members must recognize this group of technical and support people for their incredible efforts these past months.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!