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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

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

There are three motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-7.

The Chair has received letters sent by the hon. member for Fundy Royal and the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton, arguing that Motions No. 2 and 3, though previously defeated in committee, should be selected at report stage as they are of such exceptional significance as to warrant further consideration, in accordance with the note to Standing Order 76.1(5).

Motion No. 2 seeks to maintain the provisions of paragraph 241.2(3)(g) of the Criminal Code to ensure that there are at least 10 clear days between the day on which the request was signed by or on behalf of the person and the day on which the medical assistance in dying is provided in cases where natural death has become reasonably foreseeable.

Motion No. 3 seeks to increase from 90 to 120 the minimum number of days required between the first assessment of a person who seeks medical assistance in dying and the day on which medical assistance in dying is provided, this in the circumstance where natural death is not reasonably foreseeable.

The Chair appreciates the argument put forward by the members as to why they consider these amendments dealing with procedural safeguards to be of such significance as to warrant further consideration at report stage. As with the original medical assistance in dying legislation four years ago, I recognize that this is an important issue with profound legal, moral and constitutional dimensions and that members have strongly held and varied points of view on these matters.

For these reasons, the Chair is prepared on this occasion to give members the benefit of the doubt and to select Motions 2 and 3, even though they were previously defeated in committee.

The remaining motion, Motion No. 1, was also examined and the Chair is satisfied that it meets the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

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

Madam Chair, in light of the selection of the motions from my colleagues, I would like to withdraw my motion.

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

Accordingly, Motion No. 1 will not be proceeded with.

Motions No. 2 and 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put these motions to the House.

Motions in amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-7, in Clause 1, be amended by deleting lines 25 to 31 on page 3.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-7, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 5 with the following:

“(i) ensure that there are at least 120 clear days between”.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak at report stage of Bill C-7 and, in particular, with respect to the two very modest amendments that we in the official opposition have put forward to the legislation, namely, to maintain a 10-day reflection period and to extend the reflection period of 90 days to 100 days where death is not reasonably foreseeable. Both of these amendments are supported by the evidence that was heard at the justice committee in what was otherwise a very rushed process. It need not have been this way and it should not have been this way.

One year ago, the Attorney General should have done what we on this side of the House called on the Attorney General to do, and that was to appeal the Truchon decision. That would have provided clarity in the law and it would have provided Parliament with time to appropriately respond legislatively if necessary, but the Attorney General did not do that. Instead, he rushed ahead with legislation purportedly aimed at responding to the Truchon decision, legislation, I might add, that was introduced with very little consultation.

The legislation went well beyond responding to the Truchon decision. The legislation fundamentally changes the medical assistance in dying regime that was passed in this Parliament a mere four and a half years ago and in so doing, the Attorney General and the government pre-empted a legislative review that was mandated by Bill C-14.

As a result, what we have is a rushed process to deal with a shoddy piece of legislation that recklessly puts vulnerable Canadians at risk. It is why virtually every disability rights organization in Canada opposes this bill. Indeed, 72 national disability rights organizations wrote to the Attorney General and pleaded with him to appeal the Truchon decision. Those pleas fell on deaf ears.

More than 1,000 physicians have penned a letter to the Attorney General opposing this bill. The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities expressed concern about Canada's medical assistance in dying regime and questioned whether Canada in fact was living up to its international obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

I will quote Krista Carr, the executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada, an organization that represents the rights of persons with disabilities, who said this of Bill C-7, “Bill C-7 is our worst nightmare.”

Catherine Frazee, professor at Ryerson University, former chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and a leading advocate for the rights of persons with disabilities, said “our equality is, right now, on the line” with respect to Bill C-7. She noted that the careful balance between individual autonomy and equality carved out in Bill C-14 had been upended in Bill C-7.

Dr. Heidi Janz of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities said:

Bill C-7 would enshrine a legal form of ableism into Canadian law by making medical assistance in dying a legally sanctioned substitute for the provision of community-based supports to assist people with disabilities to live.

You must ensure that MAID does not weaponize systemic ableism in Canada.

In the face of those concerns right across the spectrum from physicians and experts to persons with disabilities and their advocates, we, on this side, thought it appropriate we proceed in a cautious and deliberate way, having regard for the complexity of the issue, the lack of consultation and the very short time frame before us to consider the radical changes brought forward by the government in Bill C-7.

Therefore, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights we put forward reasonable amendments, including maintaining a 10-day reflection period, having regard for the fact that people do change their minds and having regard for the feedback that was provided.

We put forward an amendment to ensure there be two independent witnesses. When one executes a will, one needs two witnesses. One would expect that at the very least there would be a safeguard at least as robust as in the case of executing a will when we are talking about ending one's life, but no, the government removed that safeguard.

We put forward an amendment to extend the reflection period where death is not reasonably foreseeable from 90 days to 120 days, having regard for the fact it is often not even possible to access palliative care or other supports within 90 days. What good is a reflection period of 90 days if one does not have access to alternatives within such a time frame? That amendment was rejected by the government.

Consistent with what the Minister of Disability Inclusion said, and having regard for the horrific evidence we heard of Roger Foley, who was coerced into making a request for medical assistance in dying, which he recorded, this should always be patient-initiated so coercion is limited and to guard against that.

In closing, let me just say that what we have is a piece of legislation that does the opposite of what the Supreme Court called on Parliament to do in Carter, namely, to provide for a carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards. This legislation eviscerates those safeguards, and on that basis, is unsupportable. It needs to be defeated out of hand.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a couple points of clarification. I thank the member opposite for his contributions.

The 90-day period that is entrenched in the legislation is an assessment period, not a reflection period. I believe the member misspoke. The notion that little consultation has been done on this bill is patently incorrect. We consulted 125 experts and 300,000 people submitted questionnaires.

The point has been made about the Truchon decision. What I would say, on this side of the House, is that the Truchon decision informed the response that is before Parliament right now. It talks about the autonomy of the individual.

What we know about the 10-day reflection period, part of the motion that is being debated right now, is that the 10-day reflection period for people who have made a considered decision only prolongs suffering. We know the evidence shows that people were depriving themselves of pain sedative medication just so they could hold on to provide that final consent.

Is prolonging that type of suffering what the member opposite wants to see in terms of the medical assistance in dying regime in Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, with respect to the consultation period, the consultation that was undertaken by the government provided for an online survey that left out people who do not have access to the Internet, left out people with cognitive, mobility or other impairments, and left out people living in remote and northern communities. We heard evidence before the committee that the so-called consultations were an effort to arrive at a predetermined outcome. I would not stand in any way defending that shoddy process, which led to this shoddy piece of legislation.

With respect to the matter of the 10-day reflection period, I would note that Dr. Harvey Chochinov, who was chair of the expert panel on a legislative response to the Carter decision, noted that death wishes can be transient and, indeed, data before the Quebec court in Truchon indicated that 8% of persons who made a request for medical assistance in dying removed that request, underscoring the need for a reflection period.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He mentioned that he would have liked to see the government appeal Justice Baudouin's decision. Usually, when a decision is appealed, it is because an error of fact or law was made.

Can he tell me what errors of fact or law Justice Baudouin may have made in her decision?

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

Madam Speaker, I would note that Madam Justice Baudouin, in rendering her decision and finding that the reasonably foreseeable criteria contravened section 7 and section 15 of the charter, based her analysis on only one objective of Bill C-14, namely to protect vulnerable persons from being induced in a moment of weakness to ending their lives.

The justice ignored other objectives of law, including the sanctity of life, dignity of the elderly and disabled, and suicide prevention. On that basis alone, the decision should have been appealed.

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

Madam Speaker, I will disagree that this legislation is shoddy. I think this piece of legislation is well crafted. There were some amendments that my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith would have liked to see pass in committee, which I supported, which would have done more to reassure the disability community. One of the amendments did go through.

It is similar to what my friend from the Bloc just said. It does not strike me that making the case that this matter should have been appealed deals with the immediate need that the first version of this bill did not meet the Carter decision requirements. I said it at that time in the House that we did not do what needed to be done to meet the Carter decision from the Supreme Court of Canada.

Does my colleague think it would have made any difference to appeal Truchon, only to have it reconfirmed when it got to the Supreme Court of Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, let me just say that I believe, at the very least, it would have provided time for Parliament to respond legislatively, something that we have not had sufficient time to do, and it would have better provided clarity of the law.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the discussion on Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding medical assistance in dying.

I have the privilege of being a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The committee heard from quite a few eminent witnesses during its examination of the bill. Their testimony before the committee gave rise to a number of reasoned amendments that were the subject of a lively debate among committee members.

I would like to take this opportunity to give members of the House an overview of the committee's work on Bill C-7 because I believe it could help inform upcoming discussions on this important legislative measure.

Before I do that, I want to emphasize to members of this place the looming court-imposed deadline to pass this legislation by December 18. It is important that we move expeditiously on this piece of legislation to ensure we do not prolong the suffering of Canadians or create an uneven law in respect of medical assistance in dying across the country.

The most important change put forward by Bill C-7 is its repeal of the reasonable foreseeability of natural death criterion in response to the decision in Truchon. The committee heard from several disability organizations and individuals living with disabilities who shared powerful testimony about autonomy, what it means to make a truly informed and voluntary choice, and the inherent dangers they perceive in shifting Canada's MAID regime away from an end-of-life one toward one that, in their words, made disability a justification to end life.

I want to discuss some of the amendments that were not adopted. This is an important piece of legislation and a very challenging issue, and we faced some difficult questions at committee. The majority of the members at committee ultimately felt confident that the current eligibility criteria in the MAID provisions adequately protect Canadians. There is a requirement that for people to be eligible for medical assistance in dying, their suffering must either be due to illness, disease or disability, or an advanced state of decline in capability. Suffering that would be solely due to factors like a lack of supports or the experience of inequality would not make a person eligible for MAID.

Of course, people can experience intolerable suffering for different reasons, and that brings me to the eligibility criteria that will apply in all cases and how they protect people.

Individuals are eligible for medical assistance in dying only if they make a voluntary request that is not coerced and give informed consent. We are confident that these criteria, combined with the judgment of practitioners who assess eligibility for medical assistance in dying, will address those concerns.

The committee also studied the two-track system proposed in Bill C-7, paying special attention to the fact that reasonably foreseeable natural death will no longer be one of the eligibility criteria, but the factor that determines which set of safeguards applies in a given case.

The committee examined the possibility of defining this criterion as meaning a person would have 12 months or less to live. The phrase “reasonably foreseeable natural death” requires a connection to death that is temporal but remains flexible. To some members and witnesses, that flexibility sacrifices certainty, which can make the job of practitioners more difficult. This concern is what prompted the suggestion that we define it as requiring a prognosis of 12 months.

The majority of the committee members chose not to adopt that amendment, as we believe practitioners are able to continue to make determinations on the basis of the flexible criterion they have been using to date. That evaluation is determined on a case-by-case basis. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion does not have an arbitrary 12-month outer limit, so this proposed amendment would have narrowed its meaning.

The committee also discussed possible amendments to maintain the 10-day reflection period for people whose death is reasonably foreseeable, which is what we are talking about today, to reduce that period to seven days and to maintain the safeguard requiring two independent witnesses.

In the end, those amendments to Bill C-7 were not adopted. I think that is the right decision because I feel that changes to the existing safeguards are in line with feedback we got from practitioners across the country who participated in the January 2020 consultations. A number of the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights reiterated that.

I do not think these changes will cause any harm or make the process any less safe for those whose death is reasonably foreseeable. We do believe that these changes will alleviate suffering.

The committee also discussed amendments that would have lengthened the assessment period when death is not reasonably foreseeable to 120 days, and transformed it into a reflection period. The majority of the committee members did not accept these amendments, as we feel they would have prolonged suffering for those whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable, without necessarily improving the safety of the regime.

The 90-day period is meant to be an assessment period, not a reflection period. I have already mentioned that in the course of today's debate. During that assessment period, practitioners evaluate eligibility, canvass other options for relieving a person's suffering and discuss these options with the person in question. It is not intended to impose a minimum waiting period after a person is found to be eligible.

We believe that Bill C-7 strikes the right balance between safety and patient autonomy, particularly given that we are amending the Criminal Code, which sets out the minimum requirements for a practitioner to rely on exemptions to otherwise applicable criminal offences. A practitioner could always spend more time assessing a patient, if they believe it to be necessary in the given case, again, underscoring the individualized nature of the assessment.

The committee did adopt an amendment, which the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands just mentioned, which I think will improve the second track of safeguards for those whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable.

As introduced, Bill C-7 required that one of the two assessors have expertise in the condition that is causing the person's suffering. The committee heard that this requirement could pose significant barriers to access since experts are rarely made assessors. While they may be willing to provide their expert advice in a case, they may not be willing to undertake the entirety of an assessment for a patient that they do not know and may feel their time is better spent delivering that expert care to others.

The amendment, moved by the NDP member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, would allow the assessors to consult an expert when neither of them has the relevant experience. We appreciate this evidence-based adjustment to the bill.

The committee also accepted an amendment proposed by the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Here is the reference made by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. This amendment would require the Minister of Health, in carrying out her duties related to subsection 241.31(3), to consult, when appropriate, with the minister responsible for the status of persons with disabilities. These duties would include developing regulations in support of monitoring medical assistance in dying and establishing guidelines for the death certificate reporting of medically assisted deaths.

While I am confident that the current Minister of Health has been and would continue to do this in any event, I am very happy to see this enshrined in the legislative package to ensure that the voices of the disability community are heard in this process.

I want to thank my colleagues, including the members opposite, who participated in the justice committee for their thoughtful interventions and their thoughtful deliberations. I want to emphasize to my colleagues the importance of moving quickly on this legislation because of the court-imposed deadline by the Truchon decision.

I want to raise one point that has come up in the context of what was raised by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. This was the idea that the proposed package actually perpetuates discrimination vis-à-vis persons with disabilities. The issue of disability discrimination was canvassed directly in the Truchon decision, and in that case the court said, and I will quote from paragraph 681:

...the challenged provision perhaps perpetuates another probably more pernicious stereotype: the inability to consent fully to medical assistance in dying. Yet the evidence amply establishes that Mr. Truchon is fully capable of exercising fundamental choices concerning his life and his death. As a consequence, he is deprived of the exercise of these choices essential to his dignity as a human being due to his personal characteristics that the challenged provision does not consider. He can neither commit suicide by a method of his own choosing nor legally request this assistance.

[682] Individuals in the same position as Mr. Truchon must be allowed to exercise full autonomy not only at the end of life, but also at any moment during their life, even if this means death, where the other eligibility conditions for medical assistance in dying are met.

[683] The Court thus concludes that s. 241.2(2)(d) of the Criminal Code clearly infringes the applicants’ right to equality.

Equality is critical here. The point I am making is that discrimination against persons with disabilities cannot be tolerated and should never be countenanced. The point that was made in the court and the point we are making on this side of the House is that in order to entrench equality, to fulfill the promise of the charter in section 15, we must empower persons with disabilities to make the exact same choices, give consent and exercise the same autonomy over their bodies as persons who are not disabled. That is what the court drove at in the Truchon decision. That is what this bill reflects.

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

Madam Speaker, in a debate this important, I think it is important that my hon. colleague, whom I have respect for and have worked with on human rights, would not stoop so low as to impugn the motives of my colleague in regard to the 10-day period for reflection. The notion that he would want someone to suffer more is reprehensible.

It is a different situation, but my daughter took her own life and left a note. She took her own life in the context of having, at one point of her life, an unbelievable amount of stress so that she made a bad decision one evening, alone. It is not temporary. It is absolute.

The point that we are arguing is that, once this decision is made, it cannot be reversed. The notion that we are trying to make people suffer, as I said, is reprehensible. The idea is to make sure that someone who is in a bad situation, who might the next day find more light and hope, would not make a bad decision and completely eliminate the breath of their own life.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his contributions today and in this Parliament. I offer my sympathies to him for the loss within his family.

The point I was making earlier in this debate was simply to reflect what we heard during the consultations. The 10-day reflection period is entrenched in the old Bill C-14. When Canada was embarking on this for the first time in its history, it was deemed necessary to do the work of ensuring that consideration and time for reflection was available.

What we have found four years after the fact, after extensive consultations, is that the goal of that 10-day reflection period was not actually doing what it was intended to do. As an unintended consequence it was actually prolonging suffering.

The point underscoring this difference in views on either side of the House is that when people get to the stage of asking for medical assistance in dying, they have already reflected upon it. They have already considered it and have gotten to that point after very appropriate and measured determination.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, in an article yesterday, Joan Bryden of the Canadian Press reported that the Minister of Disability Inclusion believes that health practitioners should not be allowed to discuss the issue of medical assistance in dying until a patient asks about it, and that she is open to amending the legislation to make that clear. Some health care practitioners, however, disagree with that position, arguing that they have a duty to talk about all options available to patients. Have they ever thought about it? What are their thoughts on life and death? These are very simple questions.

The Canadian Nurses Association has urged the government to specifically clarify in the law that health practitioners can initiate discussions on medical assistance in dying with their patients. I would add that Jocelyn Downie, a professor of law and medicine at Dalhousie University in Halifax, said that informing patients about all options available to them is a fundamental principle of Canadian consent law. In her view, an amendment that prohibits raising the issue would be a cruel amendment and would fly in the face of well-established statutory and professional legal standards. She went on to say that it would also likely chill discussions of medical assistance in dying, as clinicians may fear liability.

I would like to know what the government really thinks about this matter.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member opposite. I want to point out two or three things.

First, there are quite a few protections for all doctors and nurses in the current legislation.

Second, they are quite free to discuss all options and the medical assistance in dying process before proceeding with that process. They are even encouraged to do so. That is exactly what is stated in the provisions concerning the second track, that is, in a situation where death is not reasonably foreseeable.

Third, in committee we discussed the position taken by the Canadian Nurses Association. It was noted that there is already a fairly wide range of protections for practitioners, whether nurses or doctors, against litigation or a complaint about their action, because they continue to have conscience rights, as well as the right to have an open discussion with their patients.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the saying goes, never two without three.

I rise today in the House of Commons to speak once again to the issue of medical assistance in dying as it pertains to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code. However, this time we have a deadline set by Justice Baudouin, namely December 18, 2020, so there is a sense of urgency now.

I am likely repeating myself today, but many people here have had unique experiences involving the end of a loved one's life. I am thinking in particular of one of my old friends, Stéphane, who died in palliative care at a very young age, in his twenties. He was supported by the excellent Maison Au Diapason. He was one of the youngest patients to die there and one of the first as well. This type of assistance is essential and useful.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for the status of women and seniors, I naturally took a special interest in this bill. In this speech, I will be reminding everyone of all the work that my party has done on this important issue, while emphasizing the great sensitivity of Quebeckers when it comes to medical assistance in dying. I will conclude with the position that certain seniors' and women's groups have taken on this issue and the recommendations they made that are extremely useful, but that are already several years old. They too are starting to get impatient.

First, let's talk about the reason for this debate. In September 2019, the Superior Court of Quebec ruled in favour of Nicole Gladu and Jean Truchon, both of whom had incurable degenerative diseases. The court stated that one of the eligibility criteria for medical assistance in dying was too restrictive, both in the federal legislation covering MAID and in Quebec's Act respecting end-of-life care.

These two brave individuals, with whom I have mutual acquaintances, simply asked to be able to die with dignity, without needlessly prolonging their suffering. Mr. Truchon, who had cerebral palsy, had lost the use of all four limbs and had difficulty speaking. Ms. Gladu, who has post-polio syndrome, is not able to control her pain with medication and cannot stay in the same position for too long because of the constant pain. She has said that she loves life too much to settle for mere existence. That is what she said.

What we are talking about here is the criterion of a reasonably foreseeable death. Justice Christine Baudouin said it well in her ruling:

The Court has no hesitation in concluding that the reasonably foreseeable natural death requirement infringes Mr. Truchon and Ms. Gladu's rights to liberty and security, protected by section 7 of the Charter.

That is the crux of our debate. These advocates had been denied medical assistance in dying because their death was not reasonably foreseeable, even though they had legitimately demonstrated their desire to stop suffering. Jean Truchon had chosen to die in June 2020, but he moved up the date because of the pandemic. Nicole Gladu is still living, and I commend her for her courage and determination.

The Bloc Québécois's position on this ethical issue is very clear, and I want to thank the member for Montcalm for his excellent work. I will not be as technical as him, but he showed us that we are capable of working together, and I thank him for all of the improvements that he made to this bill.

As many members have already pointed out, legislators did not do their job properly with the former Bill C-14. As a result, issues of a social and political nature are being brought before the courts. We need to make sure that people who have irreversible illnesses are not forced to go to court to access MAID. Do we really want to inflict more suffering on people who are already suffering greatly by forcing them to go to court for the right to make the very personal decision about their end of life? This will inevitably happen if we cannot figure out a way to cover cognitive degenerative diseases.

Obviously, we agree that we need to proceed with caution before including mental health issues, but that is not the issue today, since MAID in mental health-related cases was excluded from the bill. Once again, this matter was brought before the Standing Committee on Health via a motion moved by my colleague from Montcalm.

Second, I want to talk about how important Quebec is in this context. Quebec enacted the country's first legislation on this subject. Wanda Morris, a member of a B.C. group that advocates for the right to die with dignity, talked about how a committee that got the unanimous support of all parties in the National Assembly was a model for the rest of Canada. She said it was reassuring to see how it was working in Quebec and that people were happy to have the option to die with dignity.

However, it is important to know that this bill was first introduced by Véronique Hivon and that it was the fruit of many years of research and consultations with individuals, doctors, ethicists and patients. Whereas 79% of Quebeckers are in favour of medical assistance in dying, only 68% of people in the rest of Canada are. Those numbers are worth knowing and mentioning.

In 2015, when all parties in Quebec's National Assembly unanimously welcomed the Supreme Court's ruling on medical assistance in dying, Véronique Hivon had this to say:

Today is truly a great day for people who are ill, for people who are at the end of their lives...for Quebec and for all Quebeckers who participated in this democratic debate...that the National Assembly had the courage to initiate in 2009.

I believe that, collectively, Quebec has really paved the way, and we have done so in the best possible way, in a non-partisan, totally democratic way.

For the third part of my speech, I would like to tell you about a meeting I had with the Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale in my role as the Bloc Québécois critic for status of women, gender equality and seniors. At this meeting, these brave women shared with me their concerns about this issue.

I will quote the AFEAS 2018-19 issue guide:

Is medical assistance in dying a quality of life issue? For those individuals who can no longer endure life and who meet the many criteria for obtaining this assistance, the opportunity to express their last wishes is undoubtedly welcome. This glimmer of autonomy can be reassuring and make it possible to face death more calmly. ... As the process for obtaining medical assistance in dying is very restrictive, those who use it probably do so for a very simple reason: they have lost all hope. ... This process cannot be accessed by individuals who are not at the end of life. ... People with degenerative diseases, who are suffering physically and mentally, do not have access to medical assistance in dying.

A brief submitted in 2010, or 10 years ago, to the Select Committee on Dying with Dignity, explained that the last moments are not always difficult because there are standards to guide medical practice and medical advances help relieve pain. However, despite everyone's goodwill, some people do have unfortunate experiences. Consequently, to prevent prolonged agony from depriving some people of their dignity and control over their lives, there are those calling for as a last resort the right to die with dignity, or the right to die at a time of one's choosing with assistance in this last stage.

Another brief pointed out that there have been four separate attempts to introduce similar legislation, specifically in 1994, 2005, 2008 and 2009, but these bills have never gone further than first reading. This needs to pass.

I will now read the conclusion from the AFEAS brief, as it is really powerful:

Over the next few months, AFEAS members will continue to reflect on the framework in which individuals losing their autonomy or suffering from an incurable, disabling illness, or experiencing acute physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief will be able to clearly and unequivocally express their desire to stop fighting to live and seek assistance to die.

Establishing the framework in which these decisions are made will be critical to ensuring that abuse cannot occur. The guidelines must be clear and precise so that all individuals can freely express their own choices, without any constraints and with full knowledge of all available options. It will be essential that all end-of-life services, including palliative care, be available and effective throughout Quebec so that patients have a real choice and do not feel forced to accept a “default” option because of a lack of adequate services or undue pressure from others.

I will also close now, in the hope that all of these comments and the lived experiences of the people in Quebec who made the request and wanted to die with dignity will afford Bill C-7 the same unanimous support from all members of the House of Commons so that we may all freely choose when we die. Let's take action.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the comments and speech from the hon. member on the other side.

On a number of occasions, here in the House today and in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, it has been suggested that we are wrong not to appeal the Truchon decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

On this side of the House, we believe that Justice Baudouin's ruling in Truchon and Gladu was well documented, well expressed and well supported by the evidence.

What does the member think about the possibility of appealing this decision to the Supreme Court? Would that risk prolonging the pain and suffering of Canadians?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

I remind members that we have a deadline: December 18, 2020. This is our deadline to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, after the original deadline was extended because of the COVID-19 crisis.

However, I think we are ready to make a decision. Everyone in the House can move this forward and pass the bill.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Shefford for her excellent speech.

She mentioned my colleague from Joliette, Véronique Hivon, who did outstanding work in the Quebec National Assembly. She did politics differently. She talked to every party and said that they all needed to put partisanship aside, because this matter was too important.

Does my colleague from Shefford believe that the same kind of work has been done here, in the House?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Joliette for the question.

Unfortunately, that was not the case. I recently had some conversations with Ms. Hivon and she looks forward to seeing this file come to a close. She brought this legislation to Quebec City with a lot of heart and passion.

I do not want to pass judgment, but it is too bad that here in the House certain religious beliefs have coloured the debate on medical assistance in dying and delayed passage of the bill. There was not the same unanimity in the House of Commons as there was in the National Assembly.

It is a shame because this file should go beyond our political persuasions. This issue should be rooted in science and based on the advice of ethicists, doctors and experts. I think everyone has the right to choose freely how they will die, and that goes beyond beliefs. People who do not want to use medical assistance in dying can make that choice, and the bill allows for that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Shefford for bringing the individual situations of the plaintiffs in the Truchon case before the House again and for recognizing their bravery.

My question has to do with the unfortunate line I have heard in public, and even from some members of the official opposition, that somehow we have no obligation in Parliament to meet the deadline imposed by the decision of Madam Justice Beaudoin in the Truchon case. Not meeting that deadline would have serious consequences in Quebec.

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on the question of the importance of meeting the court deadline.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Indeed, the Superior Court of Quebec ordered federal and provincial legislation to be changed. That was supposed to be done before March 11, 2020. An extended deadline was granted by Justice Christine Baudouin and the deadline was pushed to December 18. I think there will be problems if we do not meet the December 18 deadline. That is why we must all move forward together and meet this deadline to avoid the problems that will come up if we do not comply with Justice Baudouin's order.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for her very interesting and very important speech.

The details she shared about Jean Truchon's case enabled us to understand the situation and the plans that have to be made in such a case. As my friend from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke said, we really have to understand the importance and wisdom of Justice Baudouin's decision.

I just want to emphasize how important this bill is for reducing suffering across Canada. This bill will finally—

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

Unfortunately, I have to ask the member for Shefford to keep her comment very brief.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comment.

She stressed the importance of this bill. Its primary purpose is to reduce everyone's suffering. Death is unavoidable. It is part of life. We are born and we know that, ultimately, we will die. We do not choose the moment of our birth, but—

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

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very surprised we are debating these two motions from the official opposition again in the House when these had been dealt with in committee. Without reflecting on the past decision of the Speaker, I have some concerns with respect to future precedence in declaring something particularly important, that it not open the Chair to the accusation of having a position on a particular question.

With that aside, I will turn to what is now before us.

Everyone in the House has sincerely held beliefs on this very important and difficult question of how we deal with end of life in Canada. It is important we all be careful not to impute motives to our fellow members in this debate however difficult that may be for us to do.

Turning to the content of these two motions, and again, I am surprised we are having a redo in the House.

Motion No. 2 talks about what is referred to officially as reflection period. What happens in actual fact is that those who request medical assistance in dying, where death is reasonably foreseeable, go through a very long and involved process with their spiritual advisers, their family and with the clinicians who are advising them on the end-of-life issues.

It is important to note that people are not choosing to end their lives when asking for medical assistance in dying. What they are doing is attempting to establish how they will deal with their inevitable death and to maintain their personal autonomy and control over the way that plays out. The New Democrats, in debate on medical assistance in dying, have always stated our priority is to keep in mind that what medical assistance in dying is designed to do is to reduce unnecessary suffering and not unduly prolong that suffering.

It is not just suffering for the patients, although that is one of the qualifications for being able to apply for medical assistance in dying, patients must be suffering intolerably, but also to reduce suffering for the families that are forced to bear witness to the suffering their loved ones are undergoing as they approach end of life.

What we have heard very clearly from those who are assessing and providing medical assistance is dying is that this 10-day period is not really a reflection period. It is a period that is imposed as a waiting period.

When I hear hon. members talk about people changing their minds, we need to look very carefully at what the evidence actually says. Yes, people who apply for medical assistance in dying do sometimes withdraw that request, but they almost always do so during the assessment period. Very few people do so during the waiting period. Of course, at any time they can still withdraw that consent, right up to the last moment.

Medical assessors and providers, as well as families, have said that the real impact of having such a 10-day period is simply to prolong suffering for everyone. When we look at the statistics on when those who applied for medical assistance in dying actually set a date for that assistance to be provided, we find that 50% or more of those are between the 11th and 14th day. In other words, they are being forced to wait out this period before they can assess medical assistance in dying.

It is very important we recognize that we may, and I believe we have, inadvertently prolong suffering through this so-called reflection period. Again, I remind members that we have heard again and again that this is not a snap decision people make; it is a decision that has been well considered with their families, spiritual advisers and with the physicians involved.

Motion No. 3 deals with those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It is important we remind ourselves that the condition of death being reasonably foreseeable was, in effect, taken out of medical assistance in dying legislation by the Truchon decision, not by Bill C-7.

The importance of Bill C-7 is that it would establish some special procedures that would be appropriate to those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. In that case, it set a minimum period for assessment, which was set at 90 days. Again, people are calling this a reflection period. It is not a reflection period. Nor is it a deadline by which medical assistance in dying must be carried out.

The bill would set a minimum time for assessment. If the clinicians and the patient involved believe the assessment should take longer, it can take longer than the 90 days. Therefore, the 90 days is in fact an arbitrary number. I do not think it is reflected in any medical science. Extending that to 120 has that risk, once again, of inadvertently and unintentionally prolonging suffering for those who are at the end of life.

I will not go on too long today, but it is important that we not confuse suicide with medical assistance in dying. Suicide is very serious, and I send my condolences to all those who have lost loved ones.

Medical assistance in dying is not about taking one's own life. It is about the situation when one's life is ending and how one maintains a dignified end to that life and is able to do so without prolonging suffering. We have heard again and again from families and practitioners that no one involved in medical assistance in dying wants anyone to die. They are simply dealing with the realities that medical conditions have presented to them. With that, I will end my comments.

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

The hon. member will have five minutes of questions after Oral Questions.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), as reported with amendments from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the speech given by the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke prior to question period and his contributions at the justice committee in the very sensitive and measured study of this bill.

In respect of what he heard at committee and in respect of his interest in this legislation, I wonder if he could comment on the amendment that he suggested, which was eventually adopted by the committee, in respect of ensuring that when someone is on track two, as it is known, where one's death is not reasonably foreseeable, the expertise is available to do a robust and rigorous assessment of the conditions and one's eligibility for MAID.

What motivated that kind of amendment? What is it geared towards addressing?

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

Madam Speaker, what I would say is that in the new track two, because there will be a broader range of medical conditions that may allow people to apply for medical assistance in dying, there are additional procedures required. One of those is for the assessors to seek extra expertise before the provision of medical assistance in dying.

The amendment I suggested came from the Association of MAID Assessors and Providers, which was to clarify that they could seek additional expertise, not from specialists but from those who are familiar, and perhaps more familiar than they might be, with the condition that is causing the patient's suffering.

The amendment clarifies how this is to proceed and who is to do the consultation. This is particularly important in rural and remote areas, where physicians may not have at hand those who could serve as assessors who have expertise in every medical condition that will now be covered under the track two.

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

Madam Speaker, I know that my hon. friend has taken issue with the use, by some people in the medical community and patient advocates, of the term “same-day death” to describe the implications of this legislation.

However, the fact that the committee rejected an amendment that would leave in place a 10-day reflection period, the fact that the committee rejected an amendment that would allow a seven-day reflection period, and the fact that no amendments were proposed to have any kind of reflection period in place whatsoever, not 36 hours, not 24 hours, the implication, very clearly, is that the law allows same-day death. The law allows somebody to make a decision and be approved, and then receive euthanasia or medical assistance in dying that same day.

Would the member recognize that without the amendment proposed by my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton, we will end up with same-day death in Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to be very careful not to impute motive, but anyone who understands how medical assistance in dying works knows that these phrases of “same-day dying” and “same-day death” are completely and utterly false. The only way this could happen would be that the assessment procedures specified in law were not followed.

He is in fact saying that the only way we would have same-day death is if the medical professionals involved violated both the law and the professional standards to which they are subject. I do not know why people continue to insist that this is something that would be possible, when clearly it is not.

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

Madam Speaker, the member should acknowledge that in the legislation there are no timelines set in the context of those assessment processes. Those assessment processes might take a longer period of time, but they might not. What is required by the law is two physicians signing off on the criteria having been met. There are absolutely no timelines around that.

The member has to recognize the reality of the law, and if he does not want same-day death to happen, all he has to do is vote in favour of the amendment from my colleague. The amendment alone would prevent same-day death from becoming a reality.

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot thank the member for the question. That is a shameful statement to make in the House of Commons. It accuses physicians of being prepared to act both unethically and illegally in the way they assess those eligible for medical assistance in dying.

I just cannot understand what the motives are of those who are trying to suggest that this is, indeed, a real possibility.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, when I was in high school I had the privilege of looking after an elderly lady who had MS. She was bound to a wheelchair and needed assistance on the weekends. I would provide respite care.

At the time her husband had left her, unfortunately, for her first caregiver. She was left abandoned, sometimes feeling depressed, discouraged and absolutely questioning life, but nevertheless offered hope and something of great worth and value to me as a young person in high school.

I would spend time with her listening to her stories and her reflections, and she modelled for me this great depth of character, humility, kindness, and an understanding that life sometimes gets difficult, but one puts their head up and keeps going.

I would talk to her about the challenges I faced in high school. She would walk me through them and she would offer her perspective and her insight. She always helped me come back into alignment. I cannot imagine living through high school without the blessing Sheila offered in my life at that time. I am incredibly thankful for the contributions she made.

The legislation before this House, Bill C-7, has to do with making changes to the parameters around physician-assisted death. People like Sheila will be put at risk. They will be put in harm's way should this legislation go through. It certainly seems that is the direction we are going here today, and it is unfortunate.

I would like to outline four specific concerns that exist with this legislation, and these are the concerns that are being brought forward by every single disability group in this country and have been signed off on by more than a thousand physicians here in Canada.

The first concern is, under this new piece of legislation, death would no longer need to be foreseeable, which means that it would no longer need to be imminent.

One witness said, “The removal of 'reasonably foreseeable' natural death as a limiting eligibility criterion for the provision of MAID will result in people with disabilities seeking MAID as an ultimate capitulation to a lifetime of ableist oppression.” She is talking about the devaluation of those who live with a disability and the elevation of those who have able bodies. It is wrong.

The second problem with this legislation is that it would remove a 10-day waiting period. Between giving a formal signature saying yes to medical assistance in dying and actually having the procedure administered, there used to be a 10-day waiting period. This legislation would do away with that. With something so final, so irreversible, it seems appropriate that an opportunity for a sober second thought would be granted to those who are seeking this procedure. At minimum, they should be given the opportunity to reflect.

Others will argue that they have already reflected, they have spent time thinking about this and it is often not a decision made in the moment, but I would contend, and psychologists would agree with me, there is something very significant that happens in the mind of a human when they put pen to paper. When they sign off on something, it often provokes further emotion, further consideration and further conversation with family and friends. We must give people that opportunity.

The third concern I have with this piece of legislation, and it is backed up by so many, is that it would require only one witness to sign off and not two. This takes away from the accountability required. It puts the vulnerable at risk.

In order to execute a will, two signatures are required. This is to execute a will, which is for the most part about finances. How much more should we require that extra element of accountability and thought when it comes to someone's life?

The fourth concern I would like to bring to this House today is that this legislation would not require the patient to initiate the conversation. In other words, it would allow the physician to initiate it. It would also allow the physician, or another medical practitioner, to suggest or incite the idea on behalf of the patient or for the patient. That is dangerous. It is extremely dangerous.

To illustrate this point, we had a witness come to committee whose name is Taylor Hyatt. She talked about her experience as a 20-something woman who is in a wheelchair. She went to the doctor because she had pneumonia. This is a condition most people would recover from when they are in their twenties, and so she had every expectation that of course she is going to be fine on the other side.

This was her experience:

“[The doctor] said, “The only thing we know is that this infection affects your breathing and you may need oxygen. Is that something you want?” My answer was, “of course”. [The doctor] seemed surprised and unconvinced so she asked [me] again. My answer was unchanged.

A doctor should never pressure a patient to consider medical assistance in dying, never. That is completely inappropriate. Taylor made this very clear in her testimony when she said, “Whether disabled or not, Canadians look to these professionals as guides. Doctors have power to shape the perspective of others and they should wield it with great care.”

It is absolutely necessary that we treat all people, but in particular those who live with a disability, with the utmost respect, dignity and value. What does it say about our society when we neglect to do just that?

This is an important question, and again it is one that is being asked by so many within the disabilities community. They are afraid that over time this will become entrenched in our social fabric as a nation. Instead of it being an option, it would actually become the expectation that of course a person with a disability would seek medical assistance in dying, and of course they would not want to live their life with these perceived restrictions or pain in their lives.

We actually know that doctors overestimate the perception of someone with a disability, as to the value of their life. In other words, a person with a disability sees great value in what they have to offer and in the life that they live, but the physician often imposes upon them a different set of values and a different level of worth, and that is wrong.

Krista Carr, the VP of Inclusion Canada, said, “The disability community is appalled that Bill C-7 would allow people with a disability to have their lives ended when they are suffering but not dying.” They are suffering, but they are not dying.

She went on to say, “Language and perceptions are powerful. Including disability as a condition warranting assisted suicide equates to declaring some lives [just simply are] not worth living”.

It creates this differentiation, then, between first-class society and second-class society; those who have able bodies and those who have bodies that are different; those who live with a disability and those who do not. It is atrocious that we would go down this road as a society.

Catherine Frazee has spinal muscular atrophy, and she was a professor of disability studies at Ryerson. She asked, “Why us?”

She apologized for her illustration, but nonetheless it is a point worth making. It makes us uncomfortable, but here is her quote. She said:

Why only us? Why only people whose bodies are altered or painful or in decline? Why not everyone who lives outside the margins of a decent life, everyone who resorts to an overdose, a high bridge, or a shotgun carried out into the woods? Why not everyone who decides that their quality of life is in the ditch?

Surely the answer rises up in [each of us]: That's not who we are.

Let those words ring in this place: “That's not who we are.”

As Canadians, we pride ourselves as being people who are full of compassion; people who treat one another with dignity, respect and honour; and people who look at one another regardless of the colour of their skin, their race or ethnicity, the language they speak or their background.

We look at each other and we say, “You are a person of value; you are a person of worth; you are a person who deserves respect”. It is not like us to relegate those who have a disability as second-class citizens. We must not go in this direction. We cannot do that because this is not who we are.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, while I thank the member for her comments, I must say I profoundly disagree with both the premise and the very fundamental point. I would like to know from her two things.

First, how often has the member walked extensively through the process of MAID, and how many people has she actually engaged with who have undertaken the decision to have MAID?

Second, members on the other side of the House are proud to say that a thousand physicians have expressed concern. Why is it that the member thinks that the 98,000 other physicians in Canada have not expressed that concern? Why is it less than one per cent of physicians in Canada who have expressed such a concern?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, that member may want to reconsider his words, because I will speak them back to him. He may want to give them a sober second thought, the very thought that he is not affording those who have a disability.

The member opposite said that he disagrees with the premise of my argument. Let me rehearse the premise of my argument. Every single Canadian, regardless of ability, is of equal worth, equal value, equal dignity and is worth equal respect. If that member disagrees with that, shame on him.

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

Madam Speaker, this is an emotional debate.

I congratulate the member on her speech. I can feel the emotion, but we must not get caught up in perceptions.

The objective of the bill is not to determine the value of a life; far from it. The objective of the bill is to allow people who are suffering tremendously and who know that there is no way out to make a choice that is not ours to make.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts on that. For example, does she not believe that Ms. Gladu's tremendous suffering was imposed by the system? Is the objective of this bill not to allow individuals to make their own choices? I do not see anything in the bill about the value of a life. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks about the objective of the bill, that we need to turn our attention there and therefore ignore anything that it might do, intentionally or unintentionally, aside from the objective of the bill. That is an illogical argument. That is wrong.

We must acknowledge what those within the community of people who live with a disability are saying. Why would we say that their voices do not count? The point is that this bill would impact those individuals and put them at risk.

Mr. Roger Foley came to the committee and he talked about his experience of living with an irreversible neurological disorder. He talked about his irreversible condition and he talked about what the doctors said to him. They said that they could no longer provide him the care he needed in the hospital, so they would send him home. However, they sent him home with no supports. He said, “I have been coerced into assisted death by abuse, neglect, lack of care and threats.” This is not—

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

We have time for one more question.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lethbridge for raising what I know are very sincere concerns.

I have also heard concerns from the disabled community. Therefore, I have made the suggestion that we need a special committee of the House to undertake the statutory review of all the legislation around medical assistance in dying and that the mandate of that statutory review should include a provision to examine whether the safeguards for vulnerable people are adequate in our medical assistance in dying legislation.

Does the hon. member support my proposition that we make this part of the statutory review?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, why would we pile on more bureaucracy, so to speak, when we have the opportunity in front of us? Witness after witness said that this was being rushed through. One witness commented on the fact that in the middle of a pandemic this was being rushed through. She drew attention to the irony that in the middle of a pandemic we were giving focus and attention to protecting the vulnerable, yet we were unwilling to give this legislation due time. That is wrong. Now is the opportunity—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to the two amendments moved by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton and to the impacts of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code respecting medical assistance in dying.

When I first rose to speak to the bill a month ago, I stressed the importance of a careful, diligent review of the legislation. The bill is crucial to Canadians, and what could be more important than matters that affect life and death?

Unfortunately, through my observations, research and participation as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, what I have witnessed falls well short of the thorough appraisal for which I had hoped.

The committee heard approximately eight hours of testimony on this profound legislation, a bill that would make Canada's MAID regime among the most permissive in the world. On two occasions my Conservative colleagues moved for additional days of witness testimony. We asked first for two days. It was voted down. We then asked for one day. Again, it was voted down.

November is Indigenous Disability Awareness Month. I am sad to say that in studying Bill C-7, the committee did not take the time to hear from a single representative of the indigenous community. This is a travesty and we should all be ashamed. In the eight hours we had, we heard from both MAID practitioners and many doctors and advocates for persons with disabilities who passionately opposed Bill C-7.

Today, in the House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice stated that Bill C-7 took into account the autonomy and dignity of the disability community. Persons with disabilities in Canada overwhelmingly disagree. Who are we to deny their lived reality and ignore their personal experiences?

Roger Foley, who suffers from a severe neurodegenerative illness, testified about the coercive pressures he had personally faced to choose MAID. He told the committee his health care needs were neglected and that he felt pressure by medical staff who specifically raised MAID as an option.

We heard from Dr. Ramona Coelho, who practises home care for many vulnerable patients. She explained that she had observed transient suicidal ideation in her patients, meaning while they sometimes have thoughts about suicide or wanting to die, with good supports, they often later choose to live. In highlighting the problem with the bill's 90-day period for individuals for whom death would not be imminent, Dr. Coelho explained that many treatments had waiting lists longer than 90 days. She also urged the committee to adopt a conscience amendment that would protect doctors and other health care professionals who did not want to participate in Canada's MAID regime.

Dr. Leonie Herx, Associate Professor and Head of Palliative Care at Queen's University, told the committee that the elimination of the 10-day waiting period would not allow time for a person who might have a transient death wish to change his or her mind, adding that patients often changed their minds when they were shown proper care. Dr. Herx also spoke to the witness requirement. She noted that having two witnesses helped ensure individuals were not coerced into choosing MAID. Specific examples of such coercion are known.

We heard there were not enough protections for persons with disabilities from Bonnie Brayton, national executive director of DisAbled Women's Network of Canada. Dr. Catherine Frazee, Professor Emerita, School of Disability Studies, Ryerson University, asked why persons with disabilities were being singled out by the legislation. It is a valid question.

Krista Carr, executive vice president of Inclusion Canada, told the committee, “The disability community is appalled that Bill C-7 would allow people with a disability to have their lives ended when they are suffering but not dying.” She added that every national disability organization disagreed with Bill C-7.

We heard from Dr. Heidi Janz, representing the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. She advocated for better monitoring of the MAID program, keeping the 10-day reflection period and two witness requirement and adding a condition that MAID must first be brought up by the patient, not the doctor. People do change their minds. Putting thoughts of death into a patient's mind can be very dangerous to his or her possible recovery.

David Roberge, representing the Canadian Bar Association, asked the committee to clarify what constitutes reasonably foreseeable death, noting the current law has caused significant uncertainty in practice. This is not defined in the legislation.

We also heard from Michel Racicot, a lawyer from Living with Dignity, who told us the Truchon decision should have been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which I fundamentally agree with. We are making what some have called life-shattering changes to a MAID regime, which has not been properly studied since it was first introduced five years ago, based on a Quebec Superior Court decision that was not appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada. The government has expanded its bill far past that original court decision.

Based on the text of the bill before us, apparently not all parties heard the same testimony. My Conservative colleagues and I proposed several common-sense amendments, as did the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois. These amendments sought to add safeguards to Canada's MAID regime to protect Canada's most vulnerable populations at moments of peak vulnerability, and would add reporting requirements to track MAID in Canada so we could properly review the program and better assess its flaws. This reporting was woefully unavailable as we studied this bill. At nearly every turn, the Liberals voted against these amendments.

The Conservatives proposed keeping safeguards from the 2016 legislation, passed by a Liberal majority government, such as requiring that MAID requests be signed and dated before two independent witnesses, and that Canadians choosing MAID receive a 10-day reflection period that would afford a final opportunity to deliberate the irreversible action of ending one's life. The Liberals voted against both.

When our 10-day reflection period was voted down, we proposed a period of seven days. Again, the Liberals voted against it. Unlike the previous MAID regime enacted in 2016, this bill extends the availability of MAID to those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable and introduces a 90-day waiting period before the end-of-life procedure may be carried out.

We proposed extending the period to 120 days to allow patients more time to see doctors, consider available treatments and see what their lives could be like with the proper supports in place. The Liberals voted against that.

We then tried to at least clarify the specific event that would trigger the beginning of the 90-day period. The Liberals voted against that, too.

The Conservatives were not the only party to listen to the testimony of doctors and people with disabilities advocating for safeguards. I applaud the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for proposing an amendment that would require individuals considering MAID, when death is not imminent, to receive a consultation with a palliative care professional. The member also proposed that the living conditions of persons requesting MAID, and the care made available to them, be recorded for program assessment purposes. The Liberals voted against that.

I also thank the member for Montcalm for two thoughtful amendments. One sought to provide clarity around the ambiguous phrase “reasonably foreseeable death” by drawing the line at having one year to live. The second asked for a review of Canada's MAID regime within 12 months of royal assent. As members can guess, the Liberals voted against both.

A system that does not seriously consider safeguards and reporting requirements, and that does not protect health care professionals, is broken before it begins. We heard time and again that these changes are essential. The Liberal government simply will not listen.

We are left with only one independent witness, and no reflection period for those facing imminent death; a 90-day waiting period, with no clear start date; a bill that does not require a consultation with a palliative care professional, and does not clearly outline what constitutes reasonably foreseeable death; and a bill that does not necessitate the tracking of living conditions and available treatment for those who choose MAID, nor a mandated review of the program within a year. Quite frankly, Canadians should be outraged.

I am disappointed this bill is being rushed through amid a pandemic because the Liberals chose to prorogue Parliament last summer and chose not to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada. I am appalled this bill requires fewer witnesses to end life than are required to execute a will. I am distressed that this bill does not address the medical professionals—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

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

Madam Speaker, as a point of clarification, there are four protections for conscience rights in this regime: the preamble, section 9 of the former Bill C-14, section 2 of the Charter and paragraph 132 of the Carter decision.

In terms of persons with disabilities and respecting their autonomy, I refer the member opposite to the comments of Senator Petitclerc, former Conservative minister Steven Fletcher, and many others who have indicated that there is a heterogeneity of views among the disability community.

Last, the question I would put to the member opposite comes from the Truchon decision at paragraph 678. The court addressed the issue of the competence and dignity of persons with disabilities and said:

Where natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, the consent and suffering of the disabled are worthy only of the sympathy of Parliament, which has adopted a protectionist policy towards every such person, regardless of his or her personal situation. As soon as death approaches, however, the state is prepared to recognize the right to autonomy. This is a flagrant contradiction of the fundamental principles concerning respect for the autonomy of competent people, and it is this unequal recognition of the right to autonomy and dignity that is discriminatory in this case.

That is the court in Truchon disavowing the previous regime and requiring this Parliament to extend the regime to ensure the competence, dignity and autonomy of persons with disabilities.

I was wondering if the member opposite would care to comment on that paragraph.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would love to comment on it. That is a Quebec Superior Court decision. It was not appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal. It was not appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is the court we should have listened to on something that so significantly changes a regime in Canada.

We already have MAID. We have accessibility for people who choose it. However, the safeguards are very important. Regardless of what the court may have said, we heard from persons with disabilities at committee who were very clear in their opposition to the changes in this bill, which go far beyond the Truchon decision without a review.

Why did we not do the mandated review? Why has that not happened? Why is the Liberal government choosing to expand into territory that the Truchon decision did not even address?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

An article in yesterday's edition of La Presse stated the following:

The disability inclusion minister says health practitioners should not be allowed to discuss the issue of medical assistance in dying until a patient asks about it, and she is open to amending the law to make that clear.

However, some health care practitioners disagree with her and believe that talking about all options available to patients is part of their duty to ensure informed consent. The Canadian Nurses Association has urged the government to specifically clarify in the law that medical professionals can initiate discussions on medical assistance in dying.

What does the Conservative member think about that?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, there should be an ability for health care professionals to explore all options. However, what we are talking about is who initiates that conversation. It is not a conversation, with respect to this particular regime, that should be forced on a patient, as we heard in testimony from Mr. Foley and another witness: a young woman in a wheelchair who was suffering from pneumonia. She survived, but instead of being immediately provided with the oxygen she needed, she was talked to about MAID.

How does that relate to a diagnosis of pneumonia?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, as we know, one of the challenges created by the current medical assistance in dying legislation is the requirement for final consent at the time the assistance is rendered. This forces those already assessed and approved for medical assistance in dying to make a cruel choice when faced with the possible loss of competence that would make them unable to give consent. They are forced to either go earlier, which a constituent of mine is thinking about, or risk not being able to receive the assistance they need to avoid continuing to live with intolerable suffering.

Audrey Parker campaigned to make Canadians aware of this problem, and Bill C-7 would fix it by creating a waiver of final consent. Do my colleague and the Conservatives support Audrey's amendment to help those facing the end of their lives avoid this cruel choice?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I understand it is a cruel choice and that someone in Audrey's situation wants to be able to make those arrangements. I think they should be able to make those arrangements, but I also think we cannot deny those who are in a position to change their minds the reflection period to do so. It is cruel—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

Before he starts, I would ask him to please use his headset with the proper mike.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not have a headset.

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

I do not think we can proceed with the hon. member's speech because there will not be interpretation.

The hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

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

Madam Speaker, what is before us now is perhaps among the greatest human rights abuses in Canadian history, legislating what amounts to a eugenics movement in Canada.

As that quote hits members and sinks in, they might imagine the horrors she is speaking about. Is it an effort by the Canadian government to perfect the gene pool? Is it a plan to eliminate those in society deemed burdensome or unwanted? What could the plan possibly be? She is speaking about Bill C-7.

Catherine Frazee, a professor at Ryerson University and disabled persons advocate, who lives with a disability herself, stated that Canada's disability community stands firmly against Bill C-7 because it communicates to us that our lives are not worth living.

Bill C-7, which seeks to remove necessary safeguards to protect the vulnerable from euthanasia, and to expand access to euthanasia for those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable, is dangerous and will lead to countless early and tragic deaths.

Since it was tabled in the previous session, Canada's Conservatives have listened to the pleas of Canada's disability community, who are begging the government to change the bill to protect them from the harm it will cause.

We have listened to people like Roger Foley, who told the justice committee from his hospital bed that he would not survive if this legislation passed, and that the Parliament of Canada would have his blood on its hands.

We listened to Dr. Heidi Janz, who told the committee that the removal of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” as a limiting eligibility criterion for the provision of MAID would result in people with disabilities seeking MAID as an ultimate capitulation to a lifetime of ableist oppression. We listened to countless others from Canada's disability community and indigenous community, whose voices the Liberals decided were not even worth hearing.

Why will the Liberals not listen? Why are they in such a rush to pass some of the most complicated legislation to ever come before Parliament? Why did they vote down all our amendments, which Canada's disability community had a hand in drafting?

To Canada's disability community, their doctors and their advocates, I say this. I am listening. We are listening, and we will not stop until their voices are heard.

I would like to speak now about Dr. Ramona Coelho, a doctor practising in London, Ontario, whose current practice is largely composed of people living with disabilities, as well as refugees, men out of prison or on bail, and other marginalized persons.

She made it clear to the committee that if this bill passes, she may be forced to leave the medical profession. She stated, “I find it appalling that there is a suicide completion track just for my type of patients. Everyone else's suicidal thoughts are irrational and those people deserve saving, but in this bill, my patients do not. If a young man tried to shoot himself, we would hide his guns and offer him suicide prevention. What is it about persons who are disabled and sick that makes it okay to do otherwise? There is no medical evidence that their suicidality is different from that of able-bodied persons.”

This is the ultimate form of ableism with stakes as high as life and death. We offer suicide prevention to able-bodied people who experience suicidal ideation, but if someone is disabled, their life has no value and is not worth living. Their suffering and the burden they place on the health care system qualifies someone for suicide assistance, not suicide prevention.

If Bill C-7 passes unamended, presenting MAID to patients who live with disabilities will become a standard of care. Doctors will be forced to offer the termination of a patient's life, which could be long ahead of them, as a standard of care. Imagine the weight placed on that doctor's conscience. Doctors work with patients to help them find value, joy and hope for a future in their lives. When death is not reasonably foreseeable we are no longer dealing with medical assistance in dying, but medically administered death. We have gone from MAID to mad.

A letter penned by Physicians Together with Vulnerable Canadians explained the challenges medically administered death as a standard of care would pose to their ability to do their jobs. This petition received a thousand signatures from physicians across the country. Normally to table a petition in the House, it only takes 25 names. Therefore, when a thousand experts in a field vehemently oppose what the government is doing to their work and to their patients, the government needs to listen to what they are saying.

The bill would allow a person who has just suffered a life-changing spinal cord injury to end his or her life just 90 days after the catastrophic event that caused the injury. When people are most vulnerable, experiencing unimaginable stress about their new reality, a doctor would be forced to suggest ending their lives as an option.

From my conversations with doctors and some testimony on the record at justice committee, suicidal ideation after a catastrophic injury is very common but almost always goes away with good care and when a patient eventually finds a way to cope with what he or she is dealing with. By offering death when people are most vulnerable, we are robbing them of their futures.

It takes much longer than 90 days for suicidal ideations to go away, but they do and people find joy, support and a life that is absolutely worth living. In fact, because of chronic underfunding of our health care system in Canada, it usually takes more than 90 days for a patient to even see a specialist. Do we really want to offer death before we offer care? Is that what we want our legacy as members of this Parliament to be?

The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion told the justice committee that it was easier to receive MAID than it was to get a wheelchair. It is far easier to receive MAID than it is to receive quality specialized care. A request for MAID cannot be truly voluntary, free from coercion, without first access to quality care that meets the needs of a patient.

The opposition put forward an amendment to require patients be offered meaningful access to care before MAID could be carried out, and Liberal members voted it down. This is what systemic discrimination looks like. On the street, people look away from persons with disabilities and many Canadians think they would rather be dead than left disabled. This type of discrimination is 100% unacceptable in 2020.

Let me share the story of Spring Hawes, a lady who has lived with a spinal cord injury for 15 years now. She said, “As disabled people, we are conditioned to view ourselves as burdensome. We're taught to apologize for our existence and to be grateful for the tolerance of those around us. We're often shown that our lives are worth less than non-disabled lives. Our lives and our survival depends on our agreeableness.”

Let us face it. A choice to die is not a free choice when their lives depend on their compliance. What does it tell disabled Canadians when we are willing to offer them death before we are willing to offer them care?

Kristine Cowley, a person who had a spinal cord injury 33 years ago, now has a doctorate and is a professor at a university. She was a wheelchair track Paralympian. She is married, has three children and has travelled extensively, all done after her accident.

Kris shared that it took her five years after her spinal cord injury to feel great again. She said, “To all outward appearances, I'm a successful person living and contributing to our community, but I'd be lying if I told you that I was good to go within three months of my injury when I was discharged from hospital. In fact, it was a few years before I was able to open my eyes in the morning and feel good.”

How many stories like Kristine's will never be told if Bill C-7 passes? That is what we need to ask ourselves.

My colleagues and the disability community are begging the government to stop this mad train. We do not want to be responsible for one of the greatest human rights abuses in Canadian history.

I am here on behalf of disabled Canadians, their doctors and their advocates. The government did not listen to them, but it has to listen to me: Stop the ableism, stop treating them like their lives are not worth living.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is unfortunate and inaccurate to conflate the idea of discrimination in this context.

First, the charter of rights requires that persons with disabilities be able to make the exact same decisions about their body and their passing as persons with ability, which is what the Truchon decision references.

Second, there is reference to conscience protection rights in the Carter decision, and I have already referenced that. Also, there is a reference to it in the preamble of the previous bill, Bill C-14, and I referenced that. Out of an abundance of caution after amendments that, I believe, were moved by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton in the last Parliament for further clarity, a further amendment was made with respect to conscience rights in Bill C-14. To purport that conscience rights are not protected in this legislative scheme is categorically false.

There have been assertions of a culture of coercion or encouragement towards accessing MAID on the part of practitioners. Is the member aware of any instances, not just in her province but anywhere in this country, where such instances of coercive behaviour of medical practitioners have resulted in a prosecution under the Criminal Code?

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

Madam Speaker, I would really like to assure the hon. member that the words about discrimination are not my words. Those are words from the disabled community. It is very important that he also listen to the disabled community. They are not able to be here today, because they are not elite politicians. I am here, and I am telling the member that they call what the government is doing in the bill discrimination.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. Once again, this is a very emotional debate.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the fact that many people believe it is important that services for people with disabilities be improved so that these individuals are not choosing to access medical assistance in dying because of the poor quality of care available to them.

I have spoken with many organizations that help people with disabilities, and there might be a deeper problem here. Some requests for medical assistance in dying may be attributable to the poor quality of care that is sometimes given to people with disabilities.

Perhaps that is because, in recent years, the federal government has not transferred enough money to Quebec and the provinces for health care. Increased health transfers could help people with disabilities and give those who want to live the option of receiving proper palliative care. In short, it would give them options.

What does my colleague think about the importance of reinvesting in health care?

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

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, our health care system has been chronically underfunded, especially in regard to palliative care. We are also noticing that our older community is aging, and we do not have quality palliative care in place.

I absolutely agree. We need to start acting now before it is too late.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, Audrey Parker campaigned to make Canadians aware of the challenges created by the current medical assistance in dying legislation and the requirement for final consent at the time that the assistance is rendered. It forces those already assessed and approved for medical assistance in dying to make that cruel choice when they are faced with the possible loss of competence that would make them then unable to give consent. They are then forced to either go earlier or risk not being able to receive the assistance they need to avoid continuing to live with intolerable suffering.

I asked this question earlier, and I appreciate my colleague's passion on this. Do she and the Conservative Party support Audrey's amendment in helping those facing end of life avoid this cruel choice?

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

Madam Speaker, I am here today talking on behalf of the disability community, which has called this its “worst nightmare”. We need to keep that in mind, so let us make amendments that will protect the vulnerable among us, because that is our job here in the House.

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

Madam Speaker, we debated this process of medical assistance in dying in previous Parliaments. I think one of the things that really was notable about those debates was a lack of rancour and a deep willingness to respect each other and to understand that the best motives of all parliamentarians can be seen in moments like this, when we are dealing with issues that are complex and morally difficult, but where ultimately we have a responsibility to ensure that the words of the courts are observed and that we do the best for Canadians.

I would urge the hon. member to perhaps show respect to every member of this House.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to take my last 10 seconds to speak on behalf of the indigenous community, which is a very spiritual community that wants nothing to do with this.

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

Madam Speaker, we are here today debating specific amendments that have been proposed to Bill C-7. I would encourage all members, whatever their first instincts are on the broader philosophical question of euthanasia or medical assistance in dying, to put those aside and look at the particular amendments that are in front of us. These are amendments that have been put forward by my colleague, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, who I know has worked very hard on this issue ever since it first came to Parliament and he first came to Parliament in 2015.

These amendments are reasonable amendments that all members, regardless of party and regardless of underlying philosophy, should be able to support on their merits because they preserve the principle of autonomy as well as preserving protection of the vulnerable.

The first amendment seeks to preserve a 10-day reflection period. Right now, a person who has gone through the assessment process and been approved for euthanasia or medical assistance in dying has a 10-day reflection period before this is actually carried out.

This reflection period is important because we know that people may have varying experiences of pain and a varying response to their circumstances over time. It is consistent with the principle of autonomy to want to ensure that, when people are making decisions about life and death, they are doing so not in the situation where they are rushed, pushed or feel like they need to make a snap judgment, but rather they are doing it in a way that involves some period of reflection and consultation and that they are not just responding to very immediate but transient circumstances. That is why Parliament, in its wisdom a mere four years ago, thought that this reflection period was important. Also, there was some recognition that there may be some cases where that reflection period is not appropriate. That is why, right in the existing legislation, there is a mechanism by which the 10-day reflection period can be waived. The process for waiving that reflection period is not onerous. It is not required that a person make an appeal to the courts, in order to get that reflection period waived.

The requirement for the waiving of the reflection period is merely that the physicians who sign off on the request also sign off on the waiving of the reflection period. It sets in place a default. It puts in place the concept that generally speaking, in the majority of cases, there should be a reflection period. There should be a mechanism to ensure that we do not have somebody requesting, having an assessment and receiving this thing on the same day.

We have pointed out that the government's proposal now in Bill C-7 to remove the 10-day reflection period could bring in a situation of same-day death, of somebody requesting this, going through the assessment and receiving this all on the same day. I do not think it is reasonable that a person's very worst day should be their last day, that a person could visit their mother or father on Wednesday and everything seems fine, and then go in on Friday to find that they went through the process on Thursday because that is what they wanted that day.

Members have said this would not happen in practice as physicians are reasonable, health care systems are reasonable, and that it is very unlikely that this would all go through in one day. Nonetheless, we heard repeatedly, at committee, testimony from people who did feel that they were being pressured. The parliamentary secretary asked if there are any examples of this happening. If someone reads the committee evidence they will see that testimony and hear the gut-wrenching stories of a mother whose daughter was told that she should go for medical assistance in dying. The daughter said she did not want it. Then the family was told that they were being selfish, so that family left that hospital because they did not feel safe in that environment. They were having medical assistance in dying pushed on them to such an extent that they did not feel safe.

Do I think that most doctors or most health care practitioners behave that way? Of course not, but that is why it is called a safeguard. A safeguard because most people using common sense, acting in a responsible way, would not need that safeguard in place. The safeguard exists to protect people in cases where that good judgment that we want to see in action does not take place. The principle of safeguards is not that most people might act in an abusive way, but it is the fact that some minority may act in a way that is not appropriate. That is why we have rules in place in the legislation to protect people. The safeguards are worth it because we are talking about life and death.

I encourage members, however they feel on the issue more broadly, to recognize the inherent reasonableness of a 10-day reflection period, which can already be waived in certain situations.

Most of these votes will take place on a partisan basis, but I say to every member, Liberal, New Democrat or Bloc Québécois, it is their conscience on the line and this is a matter of life and death. Every one of us, regardless of party, have a vote in this place that we have a right to exercise.

If members think that a 10-day reflection period, and most of the time it could still be waived in certain circumstances, is reasonable to ensure that vulnerable people are not pressured, then vote in favour of these amendments. Vote in favour of these amendments, first for a 10-day reflection period and second to clarify an assessment period in the case where death is not reasonably foreseeable, a 120-day assessment period, to ensure that people who have a disability, who experience a new kind of challenge, will actually go through a process of receiving treatment or at least be more likely to receive treatment before they complete the waiting period that has been put in place.

Would we not all agree that it would be a problem if someone could get medical assistance in dying faster than they could get actual care and management of their situation, if it is easier to access death than to access the basic implements that would allow a person with a disability to adapt to their new circumstances?

I would suggest that it is eminently reasonable that people be offered and receive treatment and support for adaptation to their circumstances before they receive death. Instead of just being abstractly—

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

I must interrupt the member, because it is 1:30 p.m. The hon. member will have three minutes to finish his remarks once we return to the study of the bill.

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 November 27, consideration of Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up the motion before the House, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan had three minutes remaining in his time for debate. He will also have five minutes for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, to conclude my remarks on Bill C-7, I will speak to the way the bill would enshrine discrimination against people living with disabilities. I will explain how that is.

Historically, when people experience extreme existential angst or suicidal ideation and present at a professional environment, perhaps an emergency department, they receive suicide prevention care. The intervention the system provides to them is trying to prevent them from acting on their suicidal ideation.

This is done out of a sense that suicide prevention is good for the person involved. It has been, and still is by many people, seen as consistent with small-l liberalism or a belief in autonomy more generally. When people experience these kinds of feelings, they are counselled and advised in a way that affirms the idea that life for them is very much worth living. This is the standard practice of suicide prevention as it has been practised for most of our history, and as it is practised for most people.

Based on what we have already heard regarding the experiences of people with disabilities, what they are sometimes presently experiencing when interacting with the health care system is that, when they come forward with the same kinds of feelings, they do not receive suicide prevention. Instead they receive suicide facilitation.

In other words, if I, as an able-bodied person, were to come to an emergency department with the same feelings as a friend of mine, who happens to be a person with disabilities, this friend would be much more likely to be offered suicide facilitation, whereas I would be offered suicide prevention. That is discrimination by definition.

The question for this House to consider is this: Who should get suicide prevention, and who should get suicide facilitation? This is an important question that people with disabilities are raising and have been raising at committee, that they would experience something different from the health care system than people who are able-bodied.

The direction in which members want to resolve that discrimination, according to their values, is an open question, but the fact is that people will now be treated differently if they have a disability compared with if they do not. That is very clear from this legislation and the fact that, overwhelmingly, all of the organizations representing people with disabilities that testified before the committee expressed grave concerns about the implications this would have.

I think we want to be the kind of country that treats people fairly and equally, and affirms the life and dignity of all people, regardless of whether or not they are living with a disability. This is one of many concerns that was top of mind and presented at the committee discussion on Bill C-7. I hope members will listen to it, take it seriously and think about it as they proceed to vote on these amendments at report stage.

[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, one thing the member left out of the equation is the incredible efforts provided by our medical profession, individuals who, I believe, would provide proper and consistent advice. I do not think anyone would encourage the type of behaviour the member is implying in his comments.

I wonder if, upon reflecting of some of his comments, he might take this opportunity to recognize the sense of professionalism provided by the health care workers in our health care system today.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to some of the comments I have raised about the committee testimony, which already shows concern for people with disabilities being treated differently in the system, even being pushed toward euthanasia or assisted suicide, and the need for safeguards against that.

I agree that the vast majority of our health care workers are well intentioned and do great work. Three out of four of my siblings, as well as my wife and my father, all work in health care, so I probably have more direct familial contact with people in health care than many other members.

There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country working in health care. The reason we have safeguards is not because most of those people might make problematic decisions; it is because there is always a risk, and we have already heard from people in the disability community that people are having these negative experiences, of being encouraged toward medical assistance in dying.

One person testified about being called selfish for not wanting this option. That is why we have safeguards in place. It is not for the general cases; it is for the exceptional cases, because life and death are still involved in exceptional cases.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a concern about the removal of the reflection period for people who might be suffering from mental challenges if they might qualify under what is understood as a reasonably foreseeable death. We know not all doctors are equipped to assess those challenges.

Therefore, could the member talk about the possible risks of removing the reflection period for people with mental challenges and how we could see some very dangerous consequences from that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague's work on this issue. The reflection period is one of the amendments in front of us to vote on. It is important for members to understand the reflection period can already be waived in certain circumstances. For any argument that the reflection period might not be appropriate in certain circumstances, it can already be waived. However, the reflection period creates a default, a sense that we should not have same-day death.

A person may be experiencing an extensive set of challenges on a particular day that may be very real but very transient. The reflection period is designed to ensure that the choice people make reflects considered exercise of autonomy over time, not a momentary place of darkness.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke eloquently about some of the shortcomings of the legislation. I want to give him a chance to talk about any particular amendments with respect to helping persons with disabilities and strengthening the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, many great amendments were proposed at committee that would have helped the situation. Some of those amendments will be considered in the House. I am hopeful that those considering this bill in the other place will also take a look at some of the amendments.

One amendment that would make a big difference to people living with disabilities is the requirement that a doctor or a nurse practitioner not be the one to initiate the conversation. If people come forward and say that they would like more information about MAID, then at that point the doctor or the nurse practitioner would engage and provide that information.

It should be clearly established in the law that people cannot have it suggested to them that they should consider it. If it is not something they want brought up and suddenly they are told by the system that they should really think about dying, it completely changes their engagement with the system.

Why not have in place an amendment that says that the first person to bring it up should be patient, not the doctor? We put that forward at committee. Unfortunately it was voted down, but I am hopeful people in the other place will consider this as something to maybe put in the legislation.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I last rose in the House to speak to the matter of physician-assisted death in 2016, I noted that the legislation then before us, Bill C-14, was neither the alpha nor the omega in the continuing conversations on the topic that Canadians have had for decades.

The Supreme Court had forced that legislative moment on reluctant politicians with the Carter decision, although the conversation had been simmering across society from the last century into this one.

However, in 2016, Bill C-14 brought us nowhere near where the Supreme Court had ruled Parliament must go. It was an interim step. It was a very cautious first step that was driven home with the Truchon-Gladu ruling in Quebec, which ordered that a class of people denied eligibility for medical assistance in dying by Bill C-14 were indeed entitled to access medical assistance in accordance with the Carter ruling.

The legislation before us now, Bill C-7, as amended in committee, under-amended I believe, and I will get to that in a moment, goes considerably beyond Truchon-Gladu. That said, the past five years of medically assisted death has brought Canadian society to a much more accepting place than in 2016; that increased acceptance of the practice justifies the additional provisions included in Bill C-7.

To my point that Bill C-7 was under-amended by the justice committee, the Conservatives hold that, for a variety of reasons, not least of which the WE scandal prorogation that wasted six valuable weeks in the summer, Bill C-7 has been indecently rushed through committee with not nearly adequate consultation. In the shadow of time allocation, signalled by the Liberal House leader last Thursday, it seems it will be denied adequate debate now during report stage.

This flawed process makes even more important the separate full and comprehensive parliamentary review of medically assisted death demanded by Bill C-14.

At committee, the Conservatives proposed nine amendments to better protect vulnerable groups, reasonable amendments, all rejected by the Liberals, but amendments which I hope Senate colleagues will consider in the upper house. I say that with some expectation of that actually happening as a result of testimony before the Senate's legal affairs committee last week by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion. In fact, the minister endorsed exactly the same point as was proposed by one of the Conservative amendments, which was voted down by Liberal members of the House justice committee. She said, unambiguously, that health practitioners should not be allowed to discuss the issue of assisted dying until a patient asked.

Admittedly, this is a particularly difficult issue and one of context. I understand why anyone, but particularly a person with disabilities might feel improperly, even terrifyingly pressured, depending on how the matter is raised by a doctor. There is quite a difference between a physician informing of a range of choices facing a seriously ill patient and directly recommending assisted death.

The Canadian Nurses Association advised the Senate committee that the law should explicitly allow doctors to raise the issue with patients, as did the Canadian Association of Medical Assistance in Death Assessors and Providers. Dr. Stefanie Green told the committee that it would be unprofessional not to lay all the options on the table. I am sure we will all follow Senate dealings on this question very closely.

The disability inclusion minister testified as well before the Senate committee that she was open to considering an amendment to Bill C-7 that would impose a 12-month sunset clause on the proposed ban on individuals suffering solely from mental illnesses to seek an assisted death. Legal experts have made it abundantly clear that if that clause remains in Bill C-7, it is destined, almost certainly, to return to the Supreme Court where it will almost certainly be found to be unconstitutional. This is another consideration to watch closely.

Over the years since Bill C-14 was passed, and now as Bill C-7 is being rushed to law, a dark cloud has hung over discussion and debate, and that is the government's still unkept promise, a broken promise actually, to better provide choice, a meaningful alternative to physician-assisted death.

In 2015, the Liberals made a campaign commitment to invest $3 billion in long-term care, including palliative care. In fact, the importance of access to palliative care and end-of-life decision-making was one of the few unanimous points of agreement in the special joint committee's report to Parliament in February 2016.

The government promised to expand the availability of accessible, affordable, acceptable palliative care for all those who for reason of conscience, faith or choice decided not to avail themselves of physician-assisted death. The Liberals' inconsistency in the matter of choice in other circumstances aside, this is a promise that must be fulfilled. It is essential that hospice and palliative care capacity in the country be vastly expanded to provide for those who would choose a meaningful alternative to MAID.

As I said in the House four years ago, my personal decision, which will determine my vote on this legislation, is a product of three individuals and their experiences and my own.

In my previous life as a journalist, I followed closely the unsuccessful legal crusade of Sue Rodriguez, as ALS steadily increased its smothering, deadly grip on her. I was seized by her rhetorical question posed to all Canadians, “If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?”

When I first came to Parliament 12 years ago, I became close to another thoughtful, courageous Canadian, a fellow MP, the Hon. Steven Fletcher, Canada's first quadriplegic MP, re-elected three times. Steven did not give up after a life-changing accident. He met immense challenges and he overcame them.

However, in two private members' bills tabled several years ago, which I seconded, and in testimony before the justice committee in January 2016, Steven made a powerfully convincing argument for self-determination to one day make a final decision. Steven argued for a law by which an individual could make one's own decision based on one's own morals and ethics, but under guarantee there would be no pressure on that person from society, family, friends, or the facility in which he or she might be.

I was also powerfully persuaded by the tragically tortuous passing of my brother-in-law, a brilliant academic, by Alzheimer's. I informed the House during debate on Bill C-14 that should such an end one day face me, I would surely compose an advance directive and that one way or the other it would be fulfilled.

Finally, as a cancer survivor, I have had many hours of reflection during treatment and since to personally ponder the issues involved in medically assisted death and Sue Rodriguez's quite powerful rhetorical question: Who owns my life?

I am honoured to participate in this debate on Bill C-7 as I was with Bill C-14. Bill C-7 would correct the major deficiencies of the original legislation, but it is still deficient. Whatever happens in the Senate, I hope the parliamentary review, which should have occurred before consideration and passage of Bill C-7, will now more thoroughly examine this evolving law and properly lead to eventual amendments, chief among them measures to better ensure protection of Canada's 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]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the beginning and the end of this issue, I suspect we will still not be at the end, that ongoing discussions will take place both formally and informally among parliamentarians going forward.

I respect the member's belief in Parliament. If an amendment is brought forward that has already been voted on and defeated in the House by elected parliamentarians, does the member support that very same amendment being brought forward in the Senate chamber where the Senate would pass something on which a clear decision was by members of Parliament?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in many instances that has been the parliamentary practice and tradition. However, the testimony of the Minister of Disability Inclusion last week before the Senate committee's pre-study of Bill C-7, and her unambiguous comments on two amendments that she would, in fact, support, demonstrate that the government either did not ask her or did not include her in the process, and that the Senate is well within its realm to consider those specific amendments proposed and send them back to this place for proper consideration.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in the House before about my experience with MAID, where I was with a very beloved and dear family member. It was a very beautiful but sad day. I will always be grateful for that experience.

One of the things that is so important to me is the use of language. I want to be very clear that it is important that we do not use the word “suicide” in this. This is about a human being managing their own life journey. They are looking at a foreseeable death and they want to die in the best way they possibly can.

Could the member talk about the importance of language and making sure that, as we go through this process, we are very respectful of the people who have to make decisions about how they choose to leave?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, language is important. Bill C-7, in many ways, has blurred the lines with regard to the most vulnerable in Canada. That explicit language should be and I hope will be eventually added.

I must say to her first point that I do not agree with the characterization of medically assisted death as suicide. I believe it is about determining by a profound, personal and dignified choice the manner of an unavoidable outcome.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was tremendously moved by the hon. member for Thornhill's speech. The riding I represent is Saanich—Gulf Islands. I would have been, had I lived there then, the member of Parliament for Sue Rodriguez. She lived in North Saanich. Her struggle and her courage made an indelible impact, certainly on my constituents. That is one of the reasons I am so grateful that Parliament is moving forward.

I just wanted to thank the hon. member for the honesty and personal nature of his comments. I am so glad that he is well and over cancer. Please God it remain so.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her very caring, kind and gracious words. I look forward to our paths crossing again in the House, in this place, rather than by this imperfect hybrid means.

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

Mr. Speaker, in a previous speech at second reading, I noted how, perhaps 50 years from now or even sooner, we may look back on this era and these debates and ask ourselves how we could have been so foolish. History is filled with examples of ideas that were socially acceptable, celebrated or even considered the most moral option, but these ideas and policies were later shown to callously disregard the rights and dignity of individuals and communities.

As the bill went to the justice committee, I held out hope that parliamentarians would listen to the concerns of the disabled and other vulnerable Canadians who were sounding the alarm on the legislation and its implications for their lives. I hoped that the committee members would consider passing amendments to protect the vulnerable, such as extending reflection periods, which are the amendments that we are debating today, so that people would not feel that they are being rushed into medical assistance in dying.

Despite the overwhelming and compelling evidence, the committee majority really chose to ram through the bill with little consideration. There were only five meetings to hear witnesses, and of those five meetings, the majority were with the proponents of medical assistance in dying and there was very little opportunity, relatively, to hear from those who had concerns about the bill. This amounted to a mere hours of debate on an issue that is literally about the life and death of Canadians.

It is just wrong that the government is trying to ram through this important legislation in an expedited manner without taking time to listen and include the concerns of those communities who are vulnerable. It appears that the Liberals do not really want to listen to criticism or work to improve the bill and that they want to implement their agenda, regardless. In doing so, I believe they are ignoring the voices of disabled people, indigenous people, doctors and many others who have raised concerns.

In dealing with the amendments today, I am very pleased that my Conservative colleagues have strongly put forward these amendments related to the 10-day reflection period. I believe that the defeat of this amendment is removing a very basic safeguard for the protection of the vulnerable. The government claims that this would only apply to those with a reasonably foreseeable death and that there should not be a reflection period. However, we have seen the evidence that people who would not be under the existing legislation, individuals who do not have a reasonably foreseeable death, are receiving medical assistance in dying under the current legislation. The government has not strengthened or clarified the definition of what is reasonably foreseeable. The Liberals are actually planning to remove it as a requirement entirely.

I do not believe that the two streams the Liberals are talking about would apply any protections. The reflection period is essential to give Canadians the opportunity to make a decision and then revisit that decision after deep reflection. I understand that no decision to pursue MAID is taken lightly, but by accelerating the timeline between the decision and the receipt of MAID, we are removing an opportunity for reconsideration.

I also do not believe that doctors are always in the best position to consider underlying mental health conditions. If someone comes in and seeks medical assistance in dying with this new expedited timeline, doctors may not be equipped to recognize people with mental health challenges. It could be that those struggling with their mental health will receive medical assistance in dying without their family being informed and without an opportunity to offer treatment or an intervention. This is obviously a very real and dangerous possibility. In fact, it has already happened.

According to testimony from Dr. Trudo Lemmens and in a recent article in Maclean's magazine, people have been seeking and granted MAID because they do not want to live with financial difficulties and loneliness. This is wrong. When did poverty get added to the list of justifications for accessing MAID? I have yet to see it in any legislation, but we are seeing it happen here, right in front of our eyes.

We must also consider that the will to live can fluctuate. Put simply, people who need to make a life-and-death decision must have the opportunity to reflect on that decision over a period of time. Dr. Harvey Chochinov, who gave testimony at committee, reported:

Our research group reported that the will to live can be highly fluctuant over intervals as short as 12 to 24 hours. In fact, 40% of patients who were prescribed lethal drugs in Oregon decided not to take [the drugs].

We also know that people facing chronic conditions may be suffering from suicidal ideation, but if they are given some time, they might choose not to follow through with that. It is clear that when it comes to issues of life and death, it is not black and white. The will to live, to continue on and to overcome can change over time.

Expanding further on the definition and enforcement of “reasonably foreseeable death”, the requirement that a death be reasonably foreseeable was one that a broad group of people could support in 2016, but since 2016, we have seen it abused in ways that people could not have imagined. One recent case comes to mind. Nancy Russell, an elderly woman who was struggling with pandemic-induced isolation, underwent MAID recently in order to, reportedly, avoid another lockdown.

I want to take a moment to say that my thoughts are with her family who recently faced this loss. I know it is not an easy situation. Nevertheless, this is a pertinent example of medical assistance in dying being provided when there was no apparent reasonably foreseeable death. Some have argued that old age in itself is a qualifier for reasonably foreseeable death, although that argument was not made when the original legislation was put forward. It was not the understanding of the public at the time we accepted this.

In this case, however, if COVID-19 had been eradicated and a further lockdown avoided, it is very likely that this woman and maybe several others would not have pursued an assisted death. Therefore, it is clear to me that the reasonably foreseeable requirement has not been respected and is not being enforced or even defined well by the Liberal government.

Let us dive deeper. “Reasonably foreseeable” is not even considered a medical concept. Professor Alain Naud from Laval University stated in his testimony, “The term does not meet any medical concept or definition. It doesn't exist in any medical textbook. Yet it is the responsibility of physicians to assess the eligibility of patients.” The Canadian Bar Association, David E. Roberge, also stated that reasonably foreseeable death has caused “significant uncertainty in practice, and Bill C-7 does not give any guidance on how to apply it.”

Instead of doing the right thing and defining the terminology for the medical community, the government and the committee majority have decided to just remove the safeguard altogether. Clearly, the bill needs further study and clarity, because when it comes to life and death, doctors need a clear set of rules and guidelines, and the bill really fails to provide that.

When I listened to the Minister of Health's committee testimony, she talked about the need to create two streams, one for those with a reasonably foreseeable death and another for those without a reasonably foreseeable death. Since the definition of “reasonably foreseeable” is so ill-defined and subject to abuse, the so-called safeguards for the vulnerable in this case are not worth the paper they are written on. The fact is that there is no desire to intervene to protect the lives of vulnerable people and I firmly believe that once the next parliamentary review is completed, we will see the further removal of any safeguards.

Another point on this feature is that the concerns of the correctional investigator, Dr. Ivan Zinger, were not included in the committee study or in any of the recommendations. Dr. Zinger has raised deep concerns about medical assistance in dying in Canada's prisons and believes that there has been some abuse of process. I agree with his assessment. Prisoners with limited rights being granted medical assistance in dying is a deep, moral and ethical problem, and it is a problem that the committee chose not to deal with. He has even called for a moratorium on MAID in Canada. I did not see his testimony included. His concerns have not been raised or addressed and that is a real failure of the bill.

This brings me to another concern, which is that it seems the government wanted to use the bill as an opportunity to circumvent the will of Parliament. Ironically, it was the will of the last Parliament, when Liberals had a majority government, that we would have a mandated five-year parliamentary review.

The government saw an opportunity with the Truchon decision. Even in the Minister of Justice's own testimony at committee, he said that they saw this as an opportunity to get something done before the five-year review. It kind of undermines the whole point of a review when we need more time. This is a radical departure from where we have been as a country and we need time to experience this and come to a new understanding as a country. We have just short-circuited that review and are pushing forward with the legislation.

In closing, I am pleased that we have brought these amendments forward. I hope we will give them their full consideration so that we can protect the lives of vulnerable people.

[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, there is no conspiracy here. The coronavirus and the court's decision from the province of Quebec are important realities that we have to face.

The member said the government is ramming this legislation through. Need I remind the member that this is a minority government, which cannot ram things through without working with other political parties. Members of the Green Party, the New Democrats and the Bloc are supporting the legislation, from what I understand.

I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on the idea that the majority's will is of more than one political party. This does not amount to ramming.

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

Mr. Speaker, this does not change the facts related to a bill dealing with an issue as important as the life and death of Canadians and changing the Criminal Code, regardless of whether other parties are supporting it or not in a minority Parliament. The fact is that we had only five meetings, the majority of which were with officials and people who have an interest in getting this legislation passed, and had relatively few meetings with people who are raising concerns about the bill. Therefore, yes, it absolutely is being rammed through.

If the government had not prorogued this summer, perhaps we would have had more time to thoughtfully consider this legislation and put forward some real, common-sense amendments.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

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

I think it is important to put this debate back in its context. Indeed, the Supreme Court rejected the previous law saying that it violated certain rights. We have obtained two extensions now to adopt a new draft of the bill. We must comply with the Supreme Court ruling, but we must also have a law that allows people to die with dignity and avoid unnecessary suffering.

Is this not a laudable goal that merits our support?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is mistaken. The bill was never taken to the Supreme Court of Canada. It has not had an opportunity to weigh in on this because the government chose not to appeal the decision and defend its own legislation, which it had just passed a few years earlier with broad support from many parties in the House of Commons.

Parliament made a statement and passed a law. To allow it to be overturned so fundamentally in a period of just a few short years really just shows the momentum on this. The government is pushing for further removals of safeguards and it is shocking. Of course, we want to do things to stand up for the dignity and autonomy of individuals, but that cannot come at the expense of vulnerable people, the disability community and others who have concerns over this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concern about the government's choice not to do a five-year review. That review was supposed to show whether people were following the first rules that were put in place. There are many anecdotal stories about where those rules were not followed, so to further remove the safeguards is quite troubling.

Has the member heard anecdotal stories in his riding where the rules were not followed? They would emphasize the need for this five-year review before we go further.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize my hon. colleague for her great work on fighting for better palliative care access for Canadians. This COVID pandemic has shown us how important it is to ensure that our seniors and those with disabilities who are living in extended care homes are properly treated and properly cared for. We should not have a situation where treatment is so limited that people are choosing medical assistance in dying as an alternative to health care.

I know the five-year review is going to happen, but my concern is that we did not wait. We did not give more time to study this legislation before moving forward with such a fundamental rewrite of our understanding of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about a constituent of mine, whom I will call Linda to protect her identity. As members of Parliament, we are constantly dealing with people facing different situations. I have told my staff that the number one priority we have is to help our constituents with whatever they are facing.

Linda called my office and was in distress. She was dying of stage 4 cancer, and it had spread throughout her body. She was in a hospice. She was in distress because when trying to make her daughter, her sole beneficiary, a co-signer on one of her accounts, the bank manager told her that unless she came to the bank, this could not be done. She explained to him that she was unable to walk and unable to get out of bed, as she was in a hospice.

She called my office and was really shaken up. She talked to my staff. I phoned the bank manager and got the same response from him. I was quite surprised and looked for ways to push this forward. I talked to other banks, and they said they would find a way for her to sign. I had conversations with her bank and its head office, but that was not going anywhere fast. I then talked to the government ombudsperson, and finally, after many conversations with me, my staff and Linda, and after a lot of struggle, the bank found a way for her to sign the form.

This was a terrible way for Linda to finish her life, but she did it because she wanted to make a difference and help her family. She also did it for people who face a similar ordeal. She won before she succumbed to cancer.

I am mentioning this because I believe that in smaller and bigger ways, until our very last breath we can make a positive contribution. We can make a difference for our families and be an inspiration to others.

I think of my father, who died a few years ago. He was such an example for us as a family. We were with him before he passed into unconsciousness. In spite of his pain, he was thinking about us. He wanted to know how we were doing. He did not want to talk about himself; he wanted to talk about others. This surprised me, as did the fact that he was able to make a difference.

I do not want to come across as judgmental while talking about assisted suicide, or MAID, because people in my extended family have chosen assisted dying. Before COVID, many would have their families around to say their last goodbyes. However, 16,000 people have now made this decision. There are twice as many people dying through euthanasia than currently die in car accidents. This is skyrocketing.

I talked to a fellow a few days ago, a constituent of mine, who said that he was choosing MAID. That was his plan for down the road. He was very matter of fact and businesslike, and I do not think he was ill. This is becoming normalized in Canadian society, and that is concerning to me.

I know that words make a difference and we do not want to hear the word “suicide”, but this has been called “assisted suicide”. Suicide has always been seen as sad in our society, and as disturbing and tragic. We probably all know people who have committed suicide. I think of my own mother and think of others. It is about grieving.

I am concerned about the direction we are going, as this has increasingly become a benevolent action. It is seen that way. People do not want to be a burden on others. There are other reasons also.

In 1973, shortly after I became a teenager, a movie came out called Soylent Green. The main actors were Charlton Heston and Leigh Taylor-Young. It was a futuristic movie set 50 years later in New York City, or 2022, which is almost upon us.

In the movie, New York City was overpopulated, with 40 million people. They were going hungry. Aging people would come into a big room with beautiful images of the earth on screens, and there was lovely music. After about 20 minutes, they would be euthanized. I remember, as a teenager, being shocked. I felt that what was happening was deceptive. The way it dealt with overpopulation was glamourized, and it just goes to show how society has changed over the years.

Let us consider the term “MAID”. It is a personification of a female servant, someone there to help and assist who is harmless. I can think of other images for assistance in dying that are much darker.

I know the bill says it would not apply to people who are struggling with mental illness, but for how long? Euthanasia advocates keep pushing the courts further and further, which we are looking at right now, to undermine and change the criteria and expand it. The bill would repeal the provision that would require a person's natural death to be reasonably foreseeable in order for them to be eligible for medical assistance in dying. This opens the door wide for future challenges to any criteria. Furthermore, the bill would remove the 10-day waiting period.

I met with Angela, who is one of my constituents. She belongs to a group of about 300 families who support each other in British Columbia. They have children with disabilities. This group is upset about the bill and the assisted suicide door it would open for people with disabilities. They feel a statement is being made in this legislation: that disabled people do not have a life worth living like other normal people.

It is simply a matter of time before mental anguish becomes a sufficient reason. Why would the barriers and timelines be reduced and reduced and then removed? We are seeing that happening right now. How many people with a mental illness have gone through great mental anguish and depression that has led to them choosing suicide?

I think of a Filipino nanny who, years ago, was absolutely distraught because she had a fender-bender with her boss's vehicle. She was a wonderful person. What did she do? She committed suicide. While I am not concerned about things going in this direction, I am very concerned with the direction the bill is going.

I think of myself and challenges I had years ago, in my early twenties. I faced a very dark and painful period, with suicidal thoughts. Suicide almost seemed very appealing in some ways. I never attempted it, but I understood it. I came through that time with the help of doctors, my faith and the woman who later became my wife, Marlene.

I feel that as a society, we should come around and bring about those supports. It is essential. We need to look at this and other ways to support people who are going through these challenges and to give them strength.

I have not had the opportunity here to talk about palliative care. I will, maybe, in the questions.

I will allow the members here to ask a few questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very personal comments of my friend across the way. Statistically, with roughly 7,000 Canadians having chosen assisted dying, I am wondering whether the member is completely against the notion.

Does he see some value in continuing to try to perfect the legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, the figures, I believe, up to the end of September are 16,000 having chosen assisted suicide. Right now it is legislation that has gone through the Supreme Court. I am disturbed that the Liberal government chose not to appeal the decision of the lower court to bring more amendments and changes. I think that is very important.

I mentioned the second part of the story about Linda that really spoke to me was her clarity of thought. I asked her very briefly what her level of pain was, and she said she had no pain. She had clear thinking and she had energy, but she was dying and could not move. She said that in palliative care one can deal with total pain and mental anguish. That is where our focus needs to be, and it is not available to most Canadians.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

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

I think we agree that we need to improve the care and inclusion of people with disabilities. Personally, I think that this very important option has not been given enough consideration.

On the other hand, in the case of a person with a disability who has all his or her faculties, who suffers from intense pain and whose life expectancy has been shortened but whose date of death is unforeseeable, the bill provides for a 90-day period during which the person could receive the necessary care we are talking about, namely, mental health support. This period would allow us to make sure that the person's desire to die is not the result of suicidal ideation. What does my colleague think about this 90-day period?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.

I sincerely believe that a 90-day period is insufficient, because there is often a long wait time before a patient can see a counsellor and obtain the necessary support.

Also, I think that our society should send the message that we are there regardless of the situation. Whether or not a person has disabilities, that person can contribute significantly to our society and our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his passionate speech but also for sharing vulnerabilities of his past life experience. We cannot forget these are real people we are talking about.

In my past line of work I had the opportunity, and was blessed, to work with palliative care patients in a hospital setting. I realized and experienced how healing, with reconciliation among broken families, that process can be, even though it is very sad.

I am wondering if the member could elaborate a bit on palliative care, and the importance of that and hospice care.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize those who are in the medical profession and volunteers in palliative care and in hospices. They make such a difference in the lives and the families of the others. That is something that I feel needs to be there. It concerns me that MAID is in the Canada Health Act, which guarantees public funding and access for all, yet palliative care is not available. It is only available to about a third of the population of Canada.

That is very disturbing. I talked with a doctor who said that they can control, totally, the level of pain and even the mental anguish. If patients are anxious, anxiety can be totally under control. I think people need to do that. I think a lot of people are afraid of the pain and the suffering that goes with that. It can be totally under control under palliative care.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I have the privilege of speaking to Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).

This bill represents a substantial change. Given the limited time, the fact we are in a minority Parliament and the fact that we are going to have a fulsome review of this bill, I would have expected a more targeted approach that directly addressed the Truchon decision so that we could get this passed quickly and move forward with legislation reflecting the Truchon decision.

The government has taken a very different approach. For all MAID patients, the government's legislation has made two major changes. One is in accordance with the Truchon decision: The reasonable foreseeability of a natural death test has been removed. Because of that, there has also been a global inclusion of a protection for individuals with mental health issues. It is a very limited exclusion, I might add.

When we look at what changes have been made for where death is not reasonably foreseeable, we are on two tracks: one where death is reasonably foreseeable and another where it is not.

Where death is not reasonably foreseeable, a couple of additional precautions and safeguards have been put in. First, one of two practitioners must have knowledge of the underlying ailment. One might say that would be a good safeguard for all those who want MAID, or medical assistance in dying.

The second is a minimum 90-day waiting period. I have heard much discussion on, and have had my own experience with, this. I know many members across the way and on our side have experience with medical practitioners. These individuals are in demand. Often, these resources and supports are difficult to get. Getting this type of support to rally around people who may be contemplating MAID and who, in time, may decide not to opt for it, will be challenging, there is no doubt. In fact, I wonder aloud whether this might eventually be a reason the Supreme Court may strike this law down.

Where death is reasonably foreseeable, it is inexplicable why the government has included these various reductions in safeguards. They may very well be worthwhile amendments. They might be great ideas. However, now is not the time. We are due for a fulsome review of the complete legislation.

The Liberals have removed the two witnesses and made it one witness. They removed the 10-day period. Practitioners now can provide MAID on the basis of prior consent. No longer is final consent required. When someone is making the most important decision of their life, literally a life or death situation, that person's consent is no longer required. We may be able to debate this, and that is what the House is for. I would call upon all members to have a fulsome debate. Let us encourage these discussions and have a full parliamentary review.

Let us dig a bit deeper and go through what this legislation is for those who are contemplating MAID, but for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable. The legislation says eligible individuals must have a grievous and irremediable medical condition. That is defined as a serious, incurable disease or disability, in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability, and having physical or physiological suffering that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable.

To paraphrase, eligibility requires an individual to have a progressive ailment in which they are suffering pain, either mental or physical. Please remember, and this is absolutely critical, there are areas in this legislation where someone can access MAID based on mental suffering alone. I will elaborate on that.

Before I go any further, I want to remind all members about something. I know we have a sense of this with the many great women and men in this chamber. As Mahatma Gandhi said, “The true measure of any society,” and any legislation, I might add, “can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.”

As a parliamentarian and as a human being, I take these words very seriously. It is our shared and sacrosanct responsibility to the most vulnerable in our community to make sure that we are always there. To those who are struggling in our community, we have a commitment, above all else, to bring them back to the light.

Frank Stephens, author and disabilities advocate, said that people with disabilities' lives are worth living. I repeat: People with disabilities' lives are worth living.

Anything that takes us away from that, we should seriously consider and not ram through legislation. Bill C-7 purports to protect individuals with mental illness, as it does not include mental illness in the definition of serious, incurable disease or suffering. The effect of this provision is to prevent people who are battling mental illness, and who may be in a horrible yet temporary situation, from accessing MAID so that we bridge them to another day. I think most Canadians would agree with that.

The challenge with the legislation is that if an individual has a pre-existing condition or a disability, they are not afforded this same protection. To be clear, if someone has a disability and is suffering through mental illness, they will have access to MAID. If they do not have a disability, they will not have access. That, by its very definition, is discrimination.

This sends a dangerous signal to persons with disabilities that their lives are not worth as much as others. That is not something that I can stand by. I would like to say to all those persons with disabilities out there right now that their lives are worth living, and I will fight for them.

I will move to the next part of the legislation, regarding folks with a reasonable expectation of death. For those individuals, for whatever reason, even though not relevant to the Truchon decision, a series of safeguards was taken off the table, one of which is the 10-day waiting period. This 10-day waiting period gives people the ability to reflect, to make sure that MAID is the correct choice. I cannot say strongly enough that MAID is permanent. This is a life or death decision. I do not think waiting an additional 10 days is overly burdensome, especially when, in circumstances where a person is suffering, it can be waived. In many cases, in the application of MAID, it actually is.

Another significant application safeguard that has been removed is the requirement of final consent. The removal of final consent is in direct contravention to the Carter decision, which requires clear consent to MAID. Removing this consent creates uncertainty. Once again, a safeguard that has absolutely nothing to do with the Truchon decision has been removed. This is a significant change in the law that should have been included in a more fulsome review.

To be fair, the legislation does allow an individual to void MAID on the day of their procedure; however, their consent is not required, which changes the entire onus of the decision. Instead of the doctor having to approach the individual, the individual has to seek out and give consent. As many have had the experience, myself included, when someone is in a difficult situation, it can be difficult for them. For example, does this mean goodbye, everyone, or does this mean stop? The way this legislation is framed, we are putting people and physicians in very difficult situations.

There is also a legal issue. Not to get too far in the weeds here, but we are putting one of the most important decisions on people who are incapacitated. It is trite law that one has to have capacity in order to make decisions. In this law, we are actually giving people who are knowingly incapacitated the ability to make the most important decision of their life: literally life or death. This is against all law and does not really make a ton of sense.

Overall, we need to look at the framework. My learned colleague talked about this as well. When we look at making decisions, these are not made in a vacuum. These are made with respect to the entire approach. We need to look at the medical system: a medical system that now, because of COVID-19, is even more strained. How are we going to get these resources?

In my riding of Northumberland—Peterborough South, I know the resources are strained when it comes to palliative care. We are not giving people the full right to decide if we are not giving them access to palliative care. We need to make sure that people do not just have the right to die with dignity, but the ability to live with dignity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for his past contributions at the justice committee.

By way of clarification, I would offer that some of the safeguards have been improved in the legislation with respect to track two, in particular, for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable.

The necessity of moving forward quickly now is prompted solely by the need to respond to the Truchon decision and the court-imposed deadline.

A lot of discussion has taken place today, at committee and on Friday with respect to persons with disabilities and how we would ensure their rights are protected. I want to remind members of the House that in the Truchon decision, Mr. Truchon and Madam Gladu were persons with disabilities. When dealing with this issue of discrimination, the court said that if it denied the ability to make decisions about one's body, including the timing of one's passing, then it was actually denying the autonomy and competence of those persons who were disabled. Therefore, the old status quo was violating the charter rights of those individuals.

I wonder if the member opposite would want to comment on that finding in the Truchon case.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's arguments are always extremely well thought out and all of his debates are extremely respectful.

Right now the bill discriminates. If people with disabilities are dealing with mental health issues, such as depression, they will have access to MAID whereas people without disabilities will not have access. That is discrimination and it is wrong. I will always stand up to fight for the most vulnerable, including persons with disabilities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite a further response to some of the comments made by the parliamentary secretary.

We know that a small part of this bill responds to the lower court Truchon decision, but many parts do not in any way respond to that. The government has created an artificial time crunch by proposing to lump together all sorts of other complex aspects of this legal regime into a bill that is also responding to the Truchon decision. If the government were serious about meeting these timelines, first, it would not have prorogued Parliament; and, second, it would have separated out the parts of the bill that deal with the Truchon decision and then all of these other issues.

We are debating report stage amendments, all of which are totally compatible with the past findings of all levels of courts. No court has raised issues with the 10-day reflection period, which can already be waived. No court has raised concerns about the possibility of the 120-day period proposed in this amendment.

I think the member might agree that it is a bit sleight of hand for the government to use a court decision on the one hand, but then go in a completely different direction from that decision with many other aspects of the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, Parliament's very existence is to have important discussions and respectful debates like this. Therefore, we should be looking to get the expertise of a full review instead of trying to ram through things that were not part of the Truchon decision. Members of Parliament who are doctors and members of Parliament who are married to doctors have a lot of great connections with physicians across the country. We should be bringing that in for a fulsome discussion. We cannot talk about this too much.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in my province we would see road signs saying “Speed kills”. This bill picks up the speed on this thing, and that kills. We need proper restrictions, restraints and controls. In the absence of a review, the bill goes too far.

Would the member like to comment a little further on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is a life-or-death measure. We are making important decisions, so a little more discussion to ensure we get this right is well merited. If the government wants to focus on speed, let us get the vaccines out today.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I listened carefully to the speeches and I am very thankful for my colleagues who have had a lot to say on the necessary protections for people with disabilities. I will follow suit.

Before I do that, I want to take the opportunity to wish my mother a happy 74th birthday. I can think of no person more worthy of recognition for her love and concern for the most vulnerable in our country. She has dedicated her life to making people's lives better at times when they need it. Therefore, I wish my mom a happy birthday, and I love her.

I will start with a quote from the executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada, Krista Carr. It captures the conversation around disabilities perfectly. At committee, she said:

The lives of people with disabilities are as necessary to the integrity of the human family as any other dimension of humanity, and this threat to the lives of people with disabilities is a threat to us all.

I am very concerned. When I think back to times I have heard Liberal ministers speak, particularly the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, who I have a lot of time for, we have heard a lot of talk about a disability lens. In fact, during the election campaign back in October of 2019, an article ran on CTV under the headline, “Liberals vow to implement disability lens for all government policies if re-elected.” The minister was quoted as saying that this was the next step to systemically entrench disability inclusion into the way the government did business and into the way the government made decisions.

It is intensely surprising and frustrating in the face of virtual unanimity from the disability community that the legislation gets it wrong, with 72 disability organizations, including every one of the national disability organizations, writing a letter to the government and saying as much, that the legislation needed to be rethought. It is particularly troubling because there was no need to get here. This was a driven by decision by the court of one province. It could have been appealed to the Supreme Court to get further guidance and clarity. Of course, there was a five-year review plan in the previous MAID legislation that would have been a practical and thoughtful way to move forward.

We have had the opportunity over the last several months to strike that committee. It could have been doing its work over time. Unfortunately, Parliament was shuttered for the better part of six months, with the odd sitting to pass extensions and other things that needed to keep going. For the most part, we were not sitting as a Parliament. For six weeks everything was shut down because the government wanted to avoid scrutiny on the WE scandal. We did not have to be here. That time would have been valuable to call experts in a meaningful way and have them weigh on this.

I had the opportunity to fill in at one of the committee meetings. It was, quite frankly, a complete gong show as we raced to hear hurried testimony from people who were experts in the field, weighing in on both sides of the equation. In the end, what was supposed to be a five-minute spot to ask meaningful questions to witnesses was shrunk down to two minutes. Then debate happened to try to get some of that time back. Quite honestly, it was hurried and rushed.

I think back in history to a quote by someone who I have a lot of time for, someone who has a lot of wise quotes, John Wooden, one of the most successful coaches in sports history. He once said, “If you don’t have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?”

We find ourselves in this situation right now. We certainly have not taken the time to do this right and we will have to do some of this over at some point in time. In the meantime, there are likely to be very troubling ramifications for those Canadians living with disabilities.

I talked about the community and all the different things the communities had to say.

I looked at recent headlines: iPolitics, “Equating assisted suicide with an equality right is a moral affront”, by Krista Carr; Michael Bach, Neil Belanger and Catherine Frazee, on November 23, in a Hill Times article titled, “Canada doesn’t need a shortcut to medically assisted dying for people with disabling conditions”; Gabrielle Peters wrote in Macleans, “Dying for the right to live”; and Trudo Lemmens and Leah Krakowitz-Broker, wrote in CBC under the headline, “Why the federal government should rethink its new medical assistance in dying law”.

I will focus particularly on the last one because from start to end, this piece gets it right. The authors start in the first paragraph, saying:

To meet the twice-renewed deadline imposed by the Quebec Superior Court in the Truchon case, the federal government is trying to push its new medical assistance in dying...bill through Parliament before year's end. Parliament should reject the key premise of this new legislation, and ask government to go back to the drawing board and start again.

It is not too late for that. Hopefully, if members of the government do not get this right in our vote coming up, hopefully, at least the Senate gets it right in its review.

Talking about people with disabilities, the authors go on to say:

[T]he bill makes their 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....

[I]t seems unconscionable for governments to prioritize state-financed MAID, rather than putting resources into ensuring access to proper care and offering people a reasonable quality of life. In fact, expanding MAID is giving our health care system an all-too-easy way out.

These are very troubling words from the disability community, from experts across the country and across the range of disabilities, yet, being completely ignored by a government whose members have previously said that they would view everything through a disability lens.

I spend good part of my life, as many people know, speaking to university classes and folks around the world, at teachers conventions or whatever it might be, telling the story of my son Jaden who is 25 years old. He has autism; he is non-verbal. One of the things that we talk about all the time is the need to unlock potential, the skills and abilities that come with autism as opposed to just the challenges.

I would note that one of the most commonly used words at committee by the ministers was the word “suffering”. They talked about suffering, ending suffering, having a mechanism and the number of people suffering. Sometimes when people are talking about people with disabilities, especially people who do not have a disability themselves and maybe do not have the life experience of living with somebody who has disability, the tendency is to think of them suffering.

In fact, when we were debating the Canadian autism partnership project or the idea of a national autism strategy, in response to a question in question period, the Prime Minister referenced new tools and treatments for those suffering from autism. This mindset is problematic. When one equates a mindset that thinks of people with disabilities automatically as suffering as opposed to people who have skills and abilities that we need to invest in, that they can contribute to making life better for all of us, we are on a dangerous path when we combine it with the legislation we are dealing with now and that thinking of people with disabilities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had the occasion to travel overseas with the member and I respect immensely his advocacy on behalf of autism, in particular, and on behalf of his son.

I do not think some of the things that were outlined in his comments are mutually exclusive. We can have supports for palliative care such as the $6 billion we put into home care. We can have supports for persons with disabilities such as the accessibility for Canadians with disabilities act that was legislated in the last Parliament.

The member talked about the Senate review and we know there is a difference of views among persons with disabilities about the approach being presented in this legislation. The person who is sponsoring Bill C-7 in the Senate is a person with disabilities, Senator Chantal Petitclerc. l am interested in the member's views on how we get a point where we are ensuring to provide supports to persons with disabilities, grant them all of these supports and services that they correctly require, but also ensure that they have the ability to make decisions that are currently available to the rest of Canadian society, including able-bodied individuals—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We will have to leave it there.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for clarity there is not just disagreement from disability organizations, they are absolutely vehemently opposed to this legislation moving forward. If we want to understand and get policy right in support of people with disabilities, we have to hear them and listen to them. We have to consult them and that absolutely did not happen in this process. I have no idea why that was the case. The government has talked a great game about hearing from people with disabilities and making sure we have a disability lens, but in this case that absolutely did not happen.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening attentively to this debate, which is understandably emotional, since this morning. There have been very moving testimonials.

I am listening to my friends the Conservatives talk about cancelling the bill or not submitting it for a vote now. I would like to ask my hon. colleague a simple question.

If there were someone here this morning who was waiting for this bill to be adopted in order to start an obviously difficult process, someone who was waiting for a sign from the government before taking action, what would my hon. colleague tell that person?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that this is a very complicated issue, that there are strong opinions on all sides of this issue, and that unfortunately the government took an approach that did not consider all of those sides and all of those viewpoints. As important as it is to move forward for some people, it is equally important or maybe more important not to move forward with something that has the immense potential to have people end their lives when it would be a great tragedy if they did at this point. In recognizing the importance of this, surely as a Parliament we could move forward both expeditiously but also in a way that respects view from all sides including—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I have time for a very short question and response.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I am hearing throughout this debate is that there is danger and that a lot of mindsets are involved. My concern is more about the timing of the debate. With coronavirus and with social isolation, a lot of people are struggling with mental health issues and there are elders in care homes who are contemplating suicide and choosing MAID as an option because they are sick and tired of quarantine and they do not know how to handle it.

What are the member's thoughts on the danger of the timing of the bill?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I brought up, the bill has some very significant flaws as it relates to people with disabilities. We are in a time during COVID right now where every one of those situations, every difficult circumstance is heightened and there is all the more reason to tread cautiously as we go forward. I really hope that, when the bill gets to the Senate, senators will treat their independence and their sober second thought very seriously and make sure that they get their approach right and make sure that the most vulnerable people in our society are listened to.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak today for those who cannot, people who have been marginalized and whose voices have been silenced and cast aside by the governing class. They are those would be victimized by Bill C-7. I would like to talk about the calls and the meetings I have had with constituents and with concerned Canadians about this, but first I have a personal story to share.

Last week the nursing home in Arnprior completed its professional and compassionate care for an elderly family member of mine, who has been in its care for the past few years. Audrey gradually declined into dementia and experienced extreme fear and anxiety over the last few years, yet in the final months of her life, knowing that death could come to her at any time, the staff, that is the doctors, the nurses and the personal support workers, continued to value her with the respect that every person deserves. They provided her with wonderful palliative care, and ensured her comfort in making sure that all her physical needs were met. They acknowledged her spiritual life and ensured she had access to the presence of her family and prayerful support of clergy as well. Last week, after 96 years, Audrey peacefully passed to eternal life.

This is the kind of care that recognizes the intrinsic beauty, value and dignity of the human person. It is the kind of care that should be the standard for every Canadian. Bill C-7 seeks to remove necessary safeguards that are meant to protect the vulnerable from euthanasia and expands access to euthanasia for those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable. This bill is dangerous, and it will lead to countless early and tragic deaths.

As I mentioned, I have received calls from and met with concerned Canadians, including members of my community, and specifically members of the disabled community. They have been pleading for changes to be made that will protect them when they are at their most vulnerable. We need to ensure that human dignity is the foundational block on which we make all decisions in this place, and that the inherent value that each and every one of us has, regardless of disability or diagnosis, is enshrined, protected and preserved. It is an inherent and inalienable value that we have because of our nature.

So often, today, it seems as though the concept of human nature is lost, but, regardless of that, the fact remains that true dignity cannot be understood without the presupposition that people, by our very being, are bearers of value that must continuously be rediscovered and reaffirmed, not degraded, invented or imposed in an arbitrary and subjective manner.

We have heard testimony from people, especially the disabled community, who are fearful for what this bill would mean for them in the future, that it would both directly and indirectly lessen their inherent human dignity and human value. We have the chance to rediscover and reaffirm that value that is present in every one of us. We have the chance to look at the preferential option for the vulnerable among us and especially those who are vulnerable to this legislation. Of course, that option is to reaffirm the dignity of the human person.

So often in the past we have seen the outcomes of states and lawmakers who cast the dignity and value of the human person to the wayside, and the outcomes have not been very good. That is why this foundational block is so important. If we are to live and work in a truly right and just society, reaffirming human dignity must always be at the forefront of our mind as we make decisions, especially as parliamentarians dealing with bills like this one, where there are no higher stakes.

This brings me to the societal consensus used for the rationale of this bill. I find it hard to believe as a society we would come to a consensus that a bill was needed that has the potential to victimize the most vulnerable among us. Perhaps it is negating a foundation of essential value inherent in human life, which can make laws dependent on fleeting trends of dominant thought where we can see law being used as an instrument of power rather than subordinating power to the law. Again, the vulnerable must be front of mind.

With this bill, death would be offered to people before they are offered or receive meaningful access to adequate care. When someone is at an extremely low point, imagine after a catastrophic injury that left them disabled, they would be offered death as a standard of care and not given the support and treatment they need to lift themselves up from that low point to feel good again.

During the previous Parliament, I was pleased to speak to the Accessible Canada Act. It is a life-affirming bill for which the dignity of the human person and preferable option for the vulnerable was at its very heart.

Now we have Bill C-7, which is an absolute departure from that notion. Instead of reaffirming the worth and inherent value of disabled people, this bill says they are worth less than the able-bodied and that their life for what it is and what it could be is not worth living.

We must stand up for and defend the vulnerable when we are in this place. We must be their voice when they are ignored and set aside. We must assure that someone's worst day is not their last. For all those who wanted to share their perspective, who wanted their voice heard but who were not able and not heard by the government, there were parliamentarians listening. For those who have practised and offered palliative care, like was done for Audrey up until the day she passed, I thank them. The work they do for people when they are at their most vulnerable is so important to ensure we, as a society, respect the value of people's lives until their natural death.

The government has made a habit of hastily putting legislation before this House. We have a court-imposed deadline we know it is seeking to meet, but this bill goes much further than just satisfying what has been asked of it by the courts and does so needlessly. It is not too late for the government to walk back from this dangerous and harmful bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will offer a clarification and then pose a question.

The clarification is that I do not think it is accurate to construe this as an offer to provide MAID. In track two a written request is made, then a 90-day assessment period takes place. During the course of that 90-day assessment, information about both palliative care and counselling needs to be provided, and it needs to be considered before MAID is actually delivered.

The point I want to make is a point that was made repeatedly by the courts, and it is about listening to persons with disabilities. The theme of the remarks are clear. The people who were listened to in the court were two people with disabilities, Mr. Truchon and Ms. Gladu.

Also, another vocal proponent for persons with disabilities Mr. Steven Fletcher, a former federal Conservative cabinet minister, said that it is condescending to not provide people with disabilities the same right under the same rules as everyone else to decide when their suffering has become intolerable. He said that there is a huge range of disabling conditions and no one, including disability rights groups, can decide for someone else what is tolerable.

I wonder if the member opposite would comment on the different perspectives amongst persons with disabilities on how we fulfill the duty to provide them with autonomy and the ability to give consent.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary raised the issue of offering MAID. In that initial period, access to palliative care is limited or not offered to many.

We have heard that the government has made investments in palliative care, but they are not enough. Before there is an established infrastructure and a law that puts death as the first offer and option, we should invest and enshrine supports for care, compassion and life. Palliative care should be the very first option for those facing death.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who also made a very personal and moving speech.

The hon. member who spoke earlier said that medical assistance in dying was out of the question. We all acknowledge and respect the value of life, which is extremely important. We must also, in my opinion, respect freedom of choice and conscience, which is extremely personal. People can choose palliative care, which needs to be enhanced and made more accessible. We all agree on that. However, one does not preclude the other. Both of these choices should be accessible.

If palliative care were as accessible as it should be, would it not be fair to offer the choice of medical assistance in dying as well?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government had an obligation to review their initial medical assistance in dying legislation, but tells us that COVID-19 is the reason those reviews were not completed prior to passing this legislation.

However, instead of challenging the decision of the court, and instead of only acting as far as the court had suggested, the government has gone much further, and has done so without properly consulting with Canadians and stakeholder groups. It is an inadequate consultation. We have not heard the heart of Canadians on this issue.

Why rush to pass this flawed legislation when it truly is a matter of life and death? We do many things in this place quickly, but we can certainly agree that this step too far is not one that needs to be done in such a hasty way.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this is a very personal issue for many of us in the House. When this was first brought up in the previous Parliament, I held numerous open houses throughout my riding. Hundreds of people attended each one of those sessions, which is more than I have had at any town hall or open house in my riding on any other issue.

I will admit that the feedback I had from constituents at that time was split almost fifty-fifty. There were those who were opposed to doctor-assisted dying legislation and those who were in favour, but even those who were in favour of it expressed concerns at that time. They wanted to ensure there were strong safeguards in place that would protect the most vulnerable in our society from accessing doctor-assisted dying.

I voted against the legislation in the previous Parliament because I was very concerned that the safeguards that were in place in the previous legislation were not strong enough, but I was also concerned that it was open to interpretation by the justice system.

Unfortunately, my concerns have proven to be true as the Quebec court has now deemed we must remove one of the most important pillars of the safeguards that were in the previous legislation, which is that death is foreseeable and predictable. To remove that safeguard is dangerous and opening this legislation much wider than any of us as parliamentarians anticipated in the previous Parliament.

I know the Liberals are going to say that we need to trust the system as protections are going to be in place and some of things I am saying are going to happen will not going to happen. They said that in the previous Parliament, and those things did happen. The things that we voiced in our debates and discussions at committee did happen.

We know that people accessed doctor-assisted dying who did not have terminal illnesses and whose deaths were not foreseeable and imminent. Already those interpretations the Conservatives previously wanted to be ironclad proved to be as ironclad as a sieve. This just further opens the door to those concerns.

My colleague before me brought up the Accessible Canada Act. For disabled communities in this country, the key to this is trust and lack thereof. In the previous Parliament, the Liberals rammed through the Accessible Canada Act in 24 hours.

I chaired the committee meeting when the opposition, including the Conservatives, NDP, Bloc and even the leader of the Green Party at that time, unanimously agreed on dozens of amendments to improve that legislation. The Liberals refused to endorse any of them, except two. This was when every disability association and stakeholder in the country was unanimously supporting those amendments on the Accessible Canada Act to improve the legislation because it was too bureaucratic, cumbersome and confusing.

Already those in the disability community were looking at the Liberal government with an extreme level of mistrust. Now the government has brought forward Bill C-7 and, again, they are all voicing concerns. They want amendments to this legislation. They want strong safeguards to protect the most vulnerable and, once again, the Liberals refuse to listen or act. They are going on their own agenda.

I am sure members have heard many stories today, but this morning I had a call from one of my constituents. Her name is Orvella Small and her daughter Sheena Small owns Sheena's Sweets and Such in High River. It's a great, cool little candy store.

Sheena is an adult with a disability. She is very well known in the community, and very outspoken and energetic. Her mom phoned me this morning and said the direction this is going is beyond frightening. Sheena does not understand, despite her outgoing personality. Orvella said that with her disability, Sheena does not understand the impact MAID legislation could have on her or the disabled community.

Right now, Sheena is a successful entrepreneur in my community. She is an award-winning entrepreneur, but she also has a very important support system around her. Her mother, Orvella, said that she is not going to be here forever. She wants to know how she could trust that whoever takes care of Sheena after she is gone will have the same love for and dedication to her that she does. She asked how she could know that some day someone is not going to decide that Sheena's life is not worth living. Sheena is not going to understand that she may be pressured into accessing doctor-assisted dying.

Can members imagine the feeling of a mother who now has to worry about the future of her daughter when she is no longer here to protect her? She does not trust that her daughter understands the implications of doctor-assisted dying. Her words to me this morning were that she could not believe the direction that this is going. She is beyond words that the Liberal government is not listening to the disabled community to improve this legislation.

I had another call on the weekend from Rob Olive, an RCMP officer in Fort Macleod, which is a small town in the southern part of my riding. He has a 10-year-old son, Alex, who has AT, which is a very rare genetic disease. He and his wife, Crystal, spend much of their time sacrificing everything they can for Alex.

They have what they call Alex's Army, and it raises funds and awareness for this very rare disease, which takes the life of children by the time they are in their mid-twenties from either cancer, pneumonia or some other reason. There is no cure. This disease is relentless and it is fatal.

Rob and Crystal's concern is that, 10 years ago, they would have felt that there was no hope for children with AT. However, just recently, there has been a major breakthrough in treatment for AT in genetic therapy, so there is hope. Perhaps not for Alex, and they understand that, but there is hope for children with AT in the future.

Rob and Crystal cannot believe that instead of putting resources into support and treatment, our focus right now, in the middle of COVID, is how to make death easier. What message does that send to those in the disabled community like Alex? Alex's Army is an invaluable part of our community, raising awareness and funds not only in my riding but also across Canada, and I know it has travelled around the world.

When I talked to Rob on the weekend he, an RCMP officer, wondered why the Liberal government did not challenge the Quebec court decision. Why did it not appeal it? Why did the government not stand up for the disabled community and the most vulnerable in our country to say that this was a line it would not cross?

Not only did the government not appeal the decision, but it also used it as an opportunity to continue to peel back those safeguards. It was bad enough to lose that pillar in the legislation about foreseeable and imminent death, but to now take the opportunity to make it even broader and expand it is sending a very frightening message to Canadians. Certainly those in the disabled community feel that they have been ignored. Not only do they feel ignored, but they feel that the statement from the government is that their lives are less valuable than everyone else's.

Again, I know that the Liberals are going to be saying throughout today that what they are saying is not like that and some of these things are not going to happen, but I know all of us have seen the reports of seniors who do not want to go back into a lockdown and be isolated are now asking for access to MAID. There are very similar concerns within the disabled community.

Many of those disabled youth and adults live in specific housing and are no longer able to access their support systems or their loved ones and their families. It is only a matter of time until disabled people feel that they cannot take that isolation, or that they do not want to put the burden on their family and loved ones, who are doing everything they can to see them. It is only a matter of time until they start asking for access to MAID, and not for any physical ailment whatsoever, but because of their mental health and the emotional stress they are under.

The legislation before us was never meant for death to be put as an emotional decision. It was intended to be based on a physical medical issue when death was imminent and foreseeable. We are so far from what it initially was.

We must ensure that the language in MAID is ironclad to ensure the protection and safety of our most vulnerable. The bill is far from achieving that and, in fact, it is telling Canadians, especially the disabled, that to die is easier than living.

Rather than focusing on making death easier, why are we not focusing on help and healing? We should be putting our efforts and resources into supports like palliative care and mental health treatment and into ensuring that we have vaccines and rapid testing for COVID.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just point out that what has happened since the previous legislation was passed is that the average age of people who access MAID is 75 years old. MAID is being accessed by 2% of the Canadian population, which is right in the middle of all jurisdictions around the world that also allow MAID. Most importantly, there is no evidence of medical practitioners being prosecuted or disciplined for having coerced or encouraged this type of behaviour.

The member raised the spectre of a mother passing and wondering what will happen to her disabled daughter and whether she would be forced into MAID by a different person. That actually betrays what the legislation says, which is that if somebody is in track two, they must make a written request to start a process of evaluation that takes no less than 90 days.

Could the member comment on that safeguard and whether that is doing the work to protect the importance of making sure these decisions are made independently and after due consideration?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am really happy the parliamentary secretary brought up that issue. Unlike every other country in the world that has doctor-assisted dying legislation, the MAID legislation, as it currently stands in Bill C-7, does not explicitly ask that the person asking for doctor-assisted dying access those mental health and health support systems within that 90 days. They do not have to do anything within that 90 days.

How about having an amendment that explicitly requires them to access every available health resource to ensure this is exactly the path they want to go down? In many cases, people cannot access those services within that 90-day time period. That is why we ask for that to be extended to 120 days.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are two types of people.

There are people who, based on their values, decide to no longer endure severe suffering and choose medical assistance in dying. The bill proposes to eliminate the requirement to provide final consent in the case of death that is reasonably foreseeable, which responds to the wishes of those who do not want to use palliative care and do not want to lose the possibility of providing that final consent if they receive too many sedatives.

There are also people who, based on their values, sometimes religious, absolutely want to live until the bitter end. It seems to me that my colleague is trying to impose the choice that those people would make on everyone else.

The legislation excludes medical assistance in dying in cases of mental illness. In the absence of a mental illness, we want people who choose not to endure severe suffering to have the possibility of exercising that choice. I want to know what my colleague thinks of that.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand my colleague's question, but my job here is to speak on behalf of my constituents. My constituents have been very clear that they do not support the direction that Bill C-7 is taking doctor-assisted dying in Canada. I know he brought up the fact that it is not accessible to people with mental health issues. We started, at the beginning of the last Parliament, with its not being accessible to the disabled and not being accessible for this and this. That has now changed. The Liberal justice minister has also hinted that it could be available to people with mental health issues.

Absolutely, I am doing everything I possibly can as a parliamentarian to speak to my constituents, strengthen the legislation and ensure there are safeguards in place to protect the most vulnerable in our society, disabled Canadians and those with mental health issues.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of all the pieces of legislation that I have debated in the House over the years, this one, Bill C-7, more than any other, deeply distresses me.

Four years ago when the Supreme Court created the right to assisted suicide in Carter, whether we liked it or not it became the law of the land. The court also set out the parameters of what that right entailed, and those parameters were addressed in Bill C-14 with the appropriate safeguards built in. Among those safeguards the most important was, arguably, that death had to be reasonably foreseeable in order to qualify for medical assistance in dying, or MAID.

Fast forward to 2019. In a puzzling decision from a Quebec court, a single judge ruled in Truchon that parts of the federal law on MAID were unconstitutional because, in her view, they were too restrictive. Among the safeguards deemed too restrictive was the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable. One single judge of a lower court made a decision for all of Canada that was literally about life and death. What is worse, the Liberal government chose not to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court. Canadians have a right to ask the Prime Minister why not. Instead of appealing the case to determine whether the nine justices of the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court judge, this government immediately brought forward new legislation, presumably because Truchon reflected the Prime Minister's own ideology.

The new bill is a dramatic departure from the protections included in the original MAID legislation. It has confirmed the fears of many: that the initial legislation represented the crest of a steep, slippery slope towards a much more expansive and dangerous approach to euthanasia.

One of the primary functions of government is to protect the lives of its citizens. In fact, the right to life is expressly enshrined in our charter. Sadly, the bill before us fails to protect the lives of our most vulnerable. It would remove the critical safeguards contained in the original MAID legislation. Removing these safeguards would have irreversible consequences. What is deeply disturbing is that Liberal MPs steadfastly refused to allow additional hours of debate to ensure that the law would reflect the will of Canadians, and they obstinately refused to accept reasonable amendments to Bill C-7 that were brought forward by our Conservative MPs.

These amendments were supported by a broad cross-section of stakeholders and included things such as leaving in place the 10-day reflection period before choosing death, ensuring the right to withdraw consent and protecting vulnerable patients by requiring the patient to be the one who first requested information on MAID. These were eminently sensible amendments that supported the autonomy of the individual while protecting the vulnerable, so it is fair to ask why the Liberal government did not support these amendments and why there is a rush to ram this legislation through the justice committee.

The Truchon case also highlights the role that judicial creep plays in the evolution of social policy in Canada. Four years ago, many of us expressed great apprehension that the original Bill C-14 would be expanded by future court decisions, and that these decisions would leave more vulnerable populations exposed to the reach of medically assisted suicide. Although our concerns were summarily dismissed at that time, Truchon and Bill C-7 have fully borne out our concerns, which is why more and more disability groups, I believe around 72, have set the alarm bells ringing and are vehemently opposing this legislation. They argue that this legislation amounts to “a deadly form of discrimination”, making it easier for disabled persons to die than to live. Again, piece by piece, the protections for the vulnerable that were promised in the original assisted suicide bill are being stripped away. In the future, things can only get worse unless we say a clear no to Bill C-7.

I have great sympathy for our fellow citizens who suffer from intolerable pain and are pleading for relief. Concern and compassion are hallmarks of life in Canada, and are qualities I hope we never discourage or disparage. However, I would also hope the primary focus of care for these individuals, at least in the first instance, would always be a higher level of palliative care.

What the government has done instead is focus on expanding the opportunities for Canadians to end their lives rather than improve them. This bill would allow Canadians with a mental illness or other disability to end their lives through assisted death even if they were nowhere near death. The government's own annual reporting revealed that, last year, 87 disabled Canadians who died with medical assistance had been denied access to critical disability support services. That is simply unacceptable. Canadians with disabilities deserve better.

To fully understand the slippery slope I referenced earlier, one need only look to the recent report from Dr. Ivan Zinger, Canada's chief correctional investigator, who exposed deep flaws in our current MAID regime as manifested in Canada's prisons. He cites the case of one terminally ill prisoner who was serving a two-year sentence. The inmate sought compassionate early parole to die a natural death in his community. Parole was denied. He then sought and received an assisted death. This is a gross misapplication of assisted suicide, and raises important questions about whether the government is adequately supporting Canadians who are facing difficult end-of-life decisions. Dr. Zinger has called for an absolute moratorium on all assisted suicide in Canada's prisons.

More broadly, I call into question whether the government is exercising the requisite caution and care to avoid unnecessary overreach and ensure that MAID is not abused or misapplied.

Equally disturbing is the concern that MAID would increasingly be used by the poor to escape their dire circumstances. A recent article in Maclean's, entitled “Dying for the Right to Live”, concluded that some disabled Canadians were considering MAID because they “simply cannot afford to keep on living.” The article referenced Susan, which is not her real name, who explained that because she had dietary restrictions food banks were not an option for her, and that a livable income was literally a matter of life and death. She said:

An increase [in income support] is the only thing that could save my life. I have no other reason to want to apply for assisted suicide, other than I simply cannot afford to keep on living.

How many other Susans are out there, for whom expanded availability of MAID represents a quick exit out of their circumstances? Who is next, children or perhaps Canadians struggling with mental illness who ask for assisted suicide because they fear being a burden to their family and friends? These are the vulnerable the Liberal government promised to protect. Members will recall that when the former minister of justice originally tabled MAID, she emphatically declared, “we need to be absolutely confident that we would not be putting vulnerable people at risk”, yet here we are today chipping away at the very protections that were so blithely guaranteed by our Liberal colleagues not so long ago.

I do not believe that Canadians expected that assisted suicide would be extended to those not terminally ill or near death, nor do I believe they would support MAID being used to displace a commitment to deliver a higher level of palliative care in our country. Similarly, I do not believe Canadians are in any way comfortable with the idea that our country would shirk its responsibility to the indigent by providing MAID as an escape from abject poverty.

For something as final as death and something as precious as life, should we not be taking a greater amount of time and care in debating and implementing the end-of-life options for Canadians? Instead of ushering in a new world of options for Canadians to seek death, should we not be doing our very best to incent Canadians to choose life?

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

Madam Speaker, by way of clarification, amendments were accepted at committee. One was by the NDP with respect to accessing expertise in rural and remote communities and one by the Green Party in respect to ensuring consultation happens between the Minister of Health and the Minister of Disability Inclusion.

Over the last couple of days we have heard a lot of debate on safeguards and why some safeguards are being eased while others are being increased. What I would put to the member is that we have the benefit now of four years of data after the advent of Bill C-14 in the last Parliament. What that data has shown us, and what the results have shown us, is that some of the safeguards were not doing the work they were intended to do.

The 10-day reflection period, for example, was prolonging suffering among those who were availing themselves of MAID because some were ensuring they would be able to provide final consent on that 10th day by depriving themselves of their own pain sedation medication.

Does the member agree that, in certain instances, safeguards like that need to be revisited and altered to address the need to be compassionate and alleviate suffering?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, certainly, we should always be open to reviewing legislation, safeguards and some of the regulations attached. However, the amendments he suggested were accepted by the Liberals at committee are the least substantive of the amendments that were submitted.

With respect to prolonging suffering, the 10-day reflection period was intended to make sure that people had a proper opportunity to consider what it meant to receive medical assistance in dying. Prolonging suffering is never the intent of government, and it should not be of any member of this House.

The focus, however, should be on providing palliative care, alleviating that suffering and encouraging people to live fulsome and productive lives that are free from pain. That is where the focus on palliative care should come in. Sadly, the government has completely abandoned making palliative care the focus of end of life 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 listening throughout the day to many of the comments from the Conservative Party, and they always want to emphasize the role of the Liberal government. I think it is important for us to recognize a couple of things.

One is that all lives are of equal value. I genuinely believe that, as I know my caucus colleagues do. The second is that it is important to note, because this is a minority government, this could not be done without the support of other opposition parties. We have the support for the legislation from the Conservatives, the Greens and the New Democratic Party.

I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts. Is it the Conservatives' intention to hold off on preventing the question to be called, or does the member see us continuing to debate this indefinitely?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would remind the member that it was the current Liberal government that actually brought forward this MAID legislation, and, more critically, failed to appeal the Truchon case, which was a case that came up from a lower court from a single judge. To then make a life-and-death decision in a piece of legislation that affects life and death without consulting the nine justices of the highest court in the land is grossly irresponsible.

That is why I am asking this member and his party to reconsider. It is very clear this legislation was rushed through to try to comply with an arbitrary date that was set by that lower court judge. This deserves a full airing and review at the highest court of the land. Sadly, the Liberal government has refused to do that for Canadians.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be joining the debate on this issue. It is an important one, and I want to make sure I reflect what my constituents have been telling me on Bill C-7. The vast majority of them want me to vote against this legislation because it would remove a great many safeguards. It would also, in my view, violate some of the intentions set out in the debate we undertook on Bill C-14.

I remember this was a deeply, deeply personal issue for many parliamentarians in the last Parliament, and it is a deeply personal issue to many of my constituents now. They have stories of loved ones who have grievous chronic conditions and were found to be ineligible because of the way Bill C-14 was structured, but they found solace in the fact Carter had paved the way at the Supreme Court to allow for this exemption to the assisted suicide provisions in the Criminal Code. While this is a debate that is deeply personal to parliamentarians and constituents, the law is not, and the law has to be as clear as possible.

In preparing for this debate, I went back and looked at Hansard to see what I had said previously on this. I had problems with the term “reasonably foreseeable”. I could foresee that a judge at some point would strike down this provision. That is exactly what I raised as an issue with Bill C-14 at the time, and it continues to be an issue in Bill C-7.

“Grievous and irremediable” is the term used in paragraph 127 of the Carter decision. I am always worried when I start quoting decisions of various judges, as I remember it was H. L. Mencken who said that judges are simply law students who grade their own exams.

However, I went through the Carter and Truchon decisions again in preparation for this after hearing the excellent contributions at second reading debate by my colleague, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. He rightly pointed out that this should have been appealed to the Supreme Court, the original judicial body that decides the laws of the land and if they conform with our Constitution.

Paragraph 682 of the Truchon decision reads:

Individuals in the same position as Mr. Truchon must be allowed to exercise full autonomy not only at the end of life, but also at any moment during their life, even if this means death, where the other eligibility conditions for medical assistance in dying are met.

Looking at the Carter decision, it does not conform to Truchon. Again, this should have been appealed to a higher court. Bill C-7 goes far beyond what was in the Truchon decision and what that single Justice Baudouin said. I really think the government did a great disservice to Canadians by not appealing the decision in order to get a final verdict for parliamentarians to be able to legislate on this question. At the end of the day, we are supposed to be the ones who legislate on behalf of our constituents.

I have concerns many of the safeguards we have talked about are being eliminated. There is a doctor in Calgary, Dr. Thomas Bouchard, who said that the way the government is legislating on this question is reckless. As well, the timeline is incredibly rushed. I would much rather hear from more parliamentarians in the chamber reflecting on the views they are hearing from their constituents, so we can get this right the second time around, now that we are relying on the Truchon decision in the matter.

The UN rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities said that MAID violates the right to life of persons with disabilities. I had a disabled daughter who passed away in the last Parliament, and I cannot but think that had she been able to grow up to be an adult that she would have been placed in an awful situation. I likely would have been her guardian in her later years, and I would have been placed in a situation looking after a loved one who would be rendered eligible for MAID. I cannot be there all the time.

I have had many constituents tell me they are concerned about their minor children and whether, once they have grown up and become adults, they will be able to be with them all the time to ensure that, when they go to the hospital with a medical condition, MAID is not pushed onto them. My constituents are concerned that MAID may be pushed on them because palliative care options may not be there. They are concerned the chronic conditions that are found to be grievous, irremediable and cannot be cured with current medical technology would lead to them being pushed into MAID by physicians, whether rightly or wrongly.

My colleague from Foothills and my colleague from Abbotsford raised excellent points, and I do not want to retread on the same matters they spoke about.

Constituents in my riding have constantly told me that they understand the debate on whether medical assistance in dying should exist in Canada. It was settled in the previous Parliament in Bill C-14. The question before us is what types of safeguards need to be in place.

In the Truchon decision rendered by Justice Beaudoin, it says that it should be open to people beyond what the Carter decision of the Supreme Court said. This is the box that Parliament should legislate within. We have to be conscious of that. Just as I have issues with death needing to be reasonably foreseeable, there were ways that we could have fixed those issues, but not with what is in Bill C-7. It goes far beyond what Truchon called for in any of the sections. In reading the decision, I do not see Bill C-7 meeting those goals.

Every single step in the process is a safeguard for that a person. They may change their mind, reflect on the questions, or obtain access to better palliative care or new technologies that render care for them better and simpler, or perhaps relieve them of a chronic condition.

I am thinking of my other three live-in kids, who have a chronic kidney condition called Alport Syndrome. It is incurable right now, and it leads to kidney failure eventually. I do not know if many members have spoken to those who are on dialysis, but it is deeply unpleasant.

I know one person on dialysis who does half marathons. I have walked 100 kilometres in the Kidney March right next to Said, who lives in my riding. He is a two-time kidney transplant recipient. He told me how difficult dialysis is and how one's mental health suffers from it.

He explained the difficulties around it, but he persevered and went through it. I think of my children in the future. If a cure is never found for their Alport Syndrome, and they are on dialysis or waiting for a kidney transplant, what will the options set before them be? What will be the safeguards available for them when the time comes and perhaps they want to make decisions and a choice like that.

I have had constituents who are surprised by their family members having made a request for medical assistance in dying at the hospital. They were completely unaware of. That should be taken into account. That is why the 10-day cool down period allows family members to be in the know.

All of our deaths are reasonably foreseeable. That was my complaint on Bill C-14 in the last Parliament. However, we do not have to die alone, and family is there for those types of difficult places. I was there for my daughter when she passed away. Even though we may consider this debate difficult, after a judicial decision, we have to get it right. Our personal views should be set aside. What our constituents believe to be the right thing to do in this matter matters the most.

I am trying to reflect what I have heard from my constituents who have express deep concerns over the lack of safeguards. Too many of them are being eliminated merely four years after the previous legislation was passed in Parliament. This is probably going to be the most important debate that many of us have in the scope of our parliamentary careers. I know that is what I will think after my time in Parliament is done. This will have been the capstone, the greatest, most important debate.

I want to reflect what my constituents have said. While dying with dignity is a slogan I have often heard, so is living with dignity. We have to ensure we put the resources and the time. We have to ensure the ability to protect our physicians and nurse practitioners, who are providing this service in the different provinces and territories, and that proper safeguards are in place, so that those who are vulnerable, those who are disabled, are not looked upon as the next person for whom MAID should be offered.

Safeguards are important. This legislation does not meet the expectations of my constituents. I will have to vote against it.

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

Madam Speaker, I offer the sympathies on behalf of everyone in the House with respect to the personal loss the member has had within his family.

I would point out a couple of clarifications. In terms of the consultations that went into the preparation of the bill, 300,000 people did fill out a questionnaire and about 125 experts were consulted. There was a lot of due diligence done in that regard. I asked these very questions about the prosecution or discipline of any medical or nursing professionals in the course of delivering MAID in the last four years, and there has been no evidence of that.

The member has read the case law and I appreciate that. I want to take him to one part of the Truchon decision because it goes to the heart of what is alleged to be discriminatory here. Paragraph 678 of the Truchon decision says that, when you deny the ability for people like Mr. Truchon and Madame Gladu to make this kind of choice, you are actually discriminating against them in failing to appreciate their competence and their autonomy. I wonder if the member opposite could comment on that paragraph of the decision.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have paragraph 678 right here and I am looking at it. I have read it. In Truchon, they found that paragraph 241.2(2)(d) was unconstitutional.

Again, this a lower court decision. The right thing to do here would have been for the government to appeal this to the Supreme Court of Canada and have it confirmed there by whatever decision the Supreme Court's nine justices, supposed to be the best legal minds of Canada, made as to whether Justice Beaudoin was correct in her determination of paragraph 678 in her decision. That would have been the right thing to do.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I as well would like to offer my condolences to the hon. member and thank him for sharing that story so that we can learn.

I actually have a question. I am aware of some of the concerns that have been raised by the disability community, particularly in regard to the failure of mentioning the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, specifically related to article 19, which refers to the rights of persons with disabilities “to live in the community, with choices equal to others, and shall take effective and appropriate measures to facilitate full enjoyment of persons with disabilities of this right and their full inclusion and participation in the community, including”, and then it goes into that.

I know the member said he would vote against this. If the government was open to making some of these amendments to reflect the concerns coming from the disability community, would he then be open to supporting this particular bill?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is actually a very good question. I was hoping, through the committee process of the House of Commons, at the justice committee, which I participated in for some of the meetings as a substitute for some members, that we could reintroduce the safeguards that are being eliminated beyond the Truchon decision, ensure that we protect the conscience rights of physicians who are also a party to this decision-making process, include better safeguards for persons with disabilities, and find wording somewhere between “reasonably foreseeable” and what the government is doing in Bill C-7 to put a better scope in for end-of-life care and determine it that way. In that case, I would absolutely reconsider how I would vote on this.

However, because of the way it is structured in Bill C-7, I would rather get it right on a matter as important as life and death.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that common-sense and well-thought-out speech. My question again has to do with COVID-19. We see right now that there is a pandemic of mental health challenges within this pandemic. Loosening the safeguards in a bill like MAID makes me wonder if the member thinks it might have a very detrimental impact on Canadians who are struggling with mental health and that it might potentially create a climate for a suicide pandemic, looking to MAID as an option rather than the last resort. As we know, death is final and irreversible.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, again that is a great point to raise. I remember having a meeting maybe a month and a half ago, before new restrictions came in Alberta, with about 20 or so constituents. Every single one had a story of a suicide they were connected to: a co-worker, a family member or somebody they knew in their neighbourhood. The youngest that I was told about was a 14-year-old who had committed suicide.

There is this great and deep harm being done to people's mental health because of this pandemic and everything that joins with it. I did a Standing Order 31 statement on it just a week ago. Over 2,000 more suicides are expected in Canada and legislation like this does not make it any simpler for people who will find themselves in emergency care units and who will be perhaps in despair about the situation that they find themselves in. It is an excellent question.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to enter into the debate on what is such an important issue. I attempted to enter into debate on Friday but due to some technical difficulties and the challenges that we all face regarding COVID, I was not able to. Therefore, I am pleased to be able to join the report stage debate on Bill C-7.

I am going to attempt to address a number of different issues throughout my remarks today, acknowledging the fact that this is an incredibly sensitive subject on which there is a diversity of opinions, views and perspectives. Importantly, I feel that diversity needs to be respected.

I would bring to members' attention a couple of comments that the Minister of Justice made in question period earlier today. He said something like that there are diverse and evolving views on this, and that is absolutely true. However, it was the next statement that was incredibly troubling to me and, I know, incredibly troubling to many who have participated in this debate. Certainly, the hundreds of constituents whom I have heard from on this matter are troubled as well. The minister went on to say that this “does represent a consensus”. It is incredibly troubling that the minister would use language as definite as that to basically shut down what is valid debate on such an important subject, a subject that is literally life and death.

To use a specific example of the diversity of views that exist on this subject, I posted on my Facebook page the other day a question posed by the member for Vancouver Granville, the former Liberal justice minister, about this very issue, on which that member's perspective is very different from the current Liberal justice minister's. In the myriad of responses, both on Facebook and those that came into my office, I found it incredible how many people reached out to provide feedback and say what they hoped the bill would include and what they hoped it would not include, and many more wanted to provide input.

The minister talked about how the Liberals heard from 300,000 Canadians, and that is great. I forwarded the consultation information to many constituents who were curious about this when those consultations took place. I find it very interesting because, in fact, in many cases I had constituents who forwarded the information they sent to the minister on the consultation also to me. I am afraid, certainly from the perspective of those people in Battle River—Crowfoot who also reached out to me, that this legislation does not address the diversity of views that exist. I could continue on this particular subject, but I think the definite nature in which the government rushed this legislation through is troubling further.

Notwithstanding the proroguing of Parliament, which is a subject that I have litigated in this chamber prior to this point, and certainly we will hear a lot more about that, especially as we enter into what will cut off my questions and comments time, the fall economic update. However, the fact is that this legislation is being rushed through. There were many further witnesses who would have provided valuable input to the discussion regarding this bill in committee. There was a whole series of amendments, and many good amendments. In fact, the two amendments that are being considered at report stage deserve valid consideration. They are two eminently reasonable amendments that would ensure that there are safeguards put in place so that Canadians are protected. I sat in on the justice committee for a short time and listened in on more of the debate. There is much more that should have been said.

I find it troubling that, in typical Liberal fashion, they seem to have manufactured a level of urgency. This was introduced in the last Parliament. They prorogued Parliament and then said it had to be done and there was only a short time frame in order to do it or else there would be significant consequences. It is that manufactured urgency that does not lead to the best public policy outcomes. This is incumbent upon all parliamentarians.

In fact, I find it interesting that the parliamentary secretary to the House leader was just talking to one of my other Conservative colleagues. He asked how long we planned to drag this out. It is concerning that on a question as important as this, including life and death for the most vulnerable among us, the government would think it is an opportunity to rush legislation through. It is incredibly concerning that they would demonstrate what seems to be such flagrant disregard for the diversity of perspectives that exist.

There is no question, as I have read the bill carefully and, as I said before, followed the committee proceedings very carefully, that we need to ensure that the most vulnerable among us are protected. I listened carefully to a press conference that included some disability advocates and professionals from indigenous communities in our country. They were addressing specifically the direction the bill was taking. It is incredibly concerning that it seems those perspectives were not heard in the Liberals' forcing through of this legislation.

In a community where there is already a suicide epidemic, the government is pushing through something that goes contrary to the value of life that these indigenous folks were talking about. It is incredibly concerning that those issues are not being addressed effectively. We have heard from health care professionals who say the lack of safeguards provide an opportunity for this to be abused. There is nothing more final than death. It is absolutely essential that we get this right.

When I was walking to go sit in at the justice committee, I was speaking with a friend on my cellphone and he asked what we were debating today. I said medical assistance in dying. We talked about that. What I find interesting is a statement he shared with me. He said, “Isn't it something that you are literally going to debate something like life and death?” We all need to take incredibly seriously the information that is put before us.

I did want to touch very briefly on how it seems the legislation fails to acknowledge them and almost creates two classes of Canadians, specifically when it comes to the protections and safeguards that need to be in place regarding Canadians who have disabilities.

I am absolutely thrilled to have many folks in my life with a wide range of disabilities. There is a young man who comes into my office who has a disability and he is an absolute joy. He volunteers and he loves to come in and help his member of Parliament. He calls himself my special campaign manager. He is an incredibly valued part of my constituency. I had classmates who had disabilities. There are many perspectives across this country.

The unintended consequences of this bill being rushed through, with its wording being ambiguous, is that it could have significant consequences in the way we approach a subject as important as this. It leads to the fact that those who are most vulnerable within our society may feel the most significant consequences of not having appropriate safeguards in place.

I see my time is coming to a conclusion and I know there are very pressing subjects to discuss further. I would just finish by saying this: Let us all take seriously what I would suggest is one of the most important aspects of our job as parliamentarians, which is to ensure that Canadians are protected and can live with dignity.

With that, I will be unable to support the bill and would encourage members to carefully consider it as we go forward.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 4 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, November 25, I now invite the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to make a statement.

The House resumed from November 30 consideration of Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 40 minutes.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot had five minutes of questions and comments remaining.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can share with this House in particular his concerns about the possibility of same-day death if these amendments are not passed. These amendments include reintroducing a 10-day reflection period. Without this 10-day reflection period, there would be absolutely no time requirements. There is an assessment that would have to take place, but there would be no time limit on that.

There would be no legislated limit on how quickly a person could go through this process without that reflection period, which would create the possibility of a very quick turnaround time and someone not having the opportunity to reflect and really consider what their situation is. I wonder if the member can comment on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to comment. Let me first note it is certainly interesting to do a speech one day and then answer questions the next, but it does not diminish the importance of this issue.

The ability to possibly access same-day death is certainly a great concern I have and that I have heard from many of my constituents about. My hon. colleague made a comment in one of his speeches that certainly resonated with me, and it is something I heard from a number of my constituents as well, when he said that one's worst day should not be one's last day.

There are safeguards required to ensure Canada's medical assistance in dying framework is strong and protects the most vulnerable among us. I believe the priority of all members of Parliament needs to be to ensure that is in fact the case.

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

Madam Speaker, in the speeches we have heard, a number of Conservatives have made the point that living should not be harder than dying. I wonder if that means the Conservatives are ready to support a guaranteed livable income to ensure that no Canadian lives in poverty or has economic disadvantage affecting their ability to make the best of their life.

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

Madam Speaker, I would simply say this: We are debating a bill that dramatically changes the framework for Canada's medical assistance in dying legislation. This bill was introduced prior to Parliament being prorogued and it is being rushed through. We have heard time and time again from experts. In fact, the Senate just wrapped up hearing from 85 different witnesses about how there is a tremendous amount of concern on this bill from all perspectives. For the justice minister to come and make the declarations he has, saying that somehow they have reached a consensus, is absolutely inappropriate.

Certainly, as we debate this bill, we need to focus on ensuring that Canadians are protected and that Parliament gets this right. This is a question literally of life and death for Canadians. Parliament has to get this right and it has to be fulsomely debated to ensure that we are able to get that balance struck appropriately.

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

Madam Speaker, could the hon. member comment on what he is hearing, in terms of a reaction, from his constituents on this amended bill?

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

Madam Speaker, I have heard from many constituents on this matter, quite frankly, from all sides of the debate saying two things. The first is that there is a tremendous amount of concern with the bill as it was presented and as it has been presented to this House. The second is that a lot of the very reasonable amendments put forward in committee were not adopted.

Certainly, that has posed a great deal of concern. I have heard from hundreds of constituents who have brought these very serious concerns to my attention. I am proud to stand for their interests in this debate on such an important subject.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today because a lot of things need to be said about Bill C-7. For those who are not aware, it is an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to medical assistance in dying.

Members know I was in Parliament when Bill C-14, the predecessor of this bill, was debated. I heard the debate and discussions about the safeguards that needed to be put in place to make sure we did not go down the slippery slope that many other countries went down when they began to allow assisted suicide and branched further into euthanizing individuals.

Knowing all the discussion and thought that went into the reaction to the Carter case, I am very troubled and disappointed that when the Quebec lower court ruled the reasonably foreseeable death provision was unconstitutional or would not be accepted in Quebec courts, the government did not put this forward to the Supreme Court. I feel as though the Supreme Court was involved in the Carter decision in the first place, as it laid out the provisions it thought would be reasonable. A reasonably foreseeable death was one of them, so this should have gone back to it for commentary before coming to this place.

With that in mind, I am also disappointed that the government has not moved forward on the palliative care provisions that were also a clear recommendation from the special committee that studied the Carter decision. It said that without good quality palliative care, we do not have a real choice.

As members know, I brought a private member's bill to the House on this, which was unanimously supported here and in the Senate. I worked with the health minister of the day to put together a framework across Canada to get consistent access to palliative care for all Canadians, because 70% of Canadians have no access to it. As per the Carter decision and the special committee, if we do not have good quality palliative care, we really do not have a choice.

I was disappointed to not even see “palliative care” mentioned in the fall economic update. The words were not even there. The fact the government would prioritize expanding medical assistance in dying without the input of the Supreme Court and without putting provisions of palliative care in place seems to be the wrong priority. Let us let people live as well as they can for as long as they can instead of encouraging them to die. I think that is where we as compassionate Canadians want to go.

Another thing the Liberal government fell down on is the choice not to do the five-year review. When Bill C-14 came through, one of its provisions was about looking at the situation after five years so we would understand whether or not the rules that were put in place were being followed, were adequate and met the intended purpose. That was not done. This was a perfect opportunity for the government to do that work, because we heard anecdotally that in many cases across Canada, the existing rules and safeguards have not been followed. We need to get a quantitative analysis on that and understand how these things could happen and how we can prevent them from happening in the future.

It is disturbing, then, that the government has decided, without doing the five-year review, to make changes to what is happening with respect to medical assistance in dying beyond what was asked for by the Quebec courts. Doing something without reviewing what one already has in place is irresponsible, in my view.

Given that, I have some concerns. The government has removed many of the safeguards put in place in the bill to keep those unfortunate things that we worried about when we were discussing C-14 from happening. For example, there is the 10-day cooling-off period. As anyone who has had relatives suffering through irremediable conditions knows, they have good days and bad days, and on the bad days they can feel like they want to die.

My mother just died in October. At the very end, she was in a lot of pain. I talked to her about medical assistance in dying and it was not something she wanted; she wanted palliative care. I am fortunate that in Sarnia—Lambton we have palliative care. One day she told me she was really thinking about it, but the next day it was not something she wanted, so I really think that 10-day cooling-off period was an important safeguard.

I am sympathetic with one of the changes that was put in, although it should have been put in after the five-year review. It says that once people have signed off on all the documents and the independent witnesses and others who understand the condition have dotted all the i's and crossed the t's, a person perhaps will not be able to give consent immediately before the procedure. I saw this in my mother's situation. At the end, she would not have been able to verbally communicate or even write to indicate her choice, should that have been her choice.

However, removing the 10-day safeguard was a mistake. The Conservatives brought an amendment to try to put it back in and explained why it was important, but it was not received.

The other thing I found troubling was the removal of the independent witnesses. We cannot even get a will without having an independent witness. It seems to me that for something as important as determining one's date of death, it should be a provision.

In Ontario, there is another difficulty, which has to do with conscience rights. There are people who do not want to participate in medical assistance in dying for religious reasons or for personal reasons of conscience, and that is their charter right. This means they do not want to participate in the act and do not want to refer. They do not want to have anything to do with it. In Ontario, medical people are being forced to at least refer. That is still a violation of their conscience rights, and it is troubling that in the debates on Bill C-7, when I asked these questions the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said there are plenty of safeguards in there and it is okay. No, it is not okay. They are still violating rights of conscience and that needs to be addressed as well.

A modified advance consent was opened up to allow people to indicate, 90 days in advance, that they want to have this procedure. Advance consent was studied by one of the committees chartered by Parliament. Its recommendations said that a lot of things need to be considered before we go down the advance consent path. The government has not really done its five-year review, and I remember the member for Vancouver Granville commenting on this very point. There is a lot to be thought out there, and if we do not do it correctly, we will once again have a situation where the intent of the bill is not going to be met. There are going to be new violations in the way we have heard anecdotally, and that will not be a very good situation.

I was happy to see in Bill C-7 the clarification to indicate that if the sole underlying medical condition is mental illness, individuals are not eligible for medical assistance in dying, although there is some controversy there. I have heard from groups across Canada that are calling on the government to allow individuals whose underlying suffering condition is mental illness to receive medical assistance in dying. I think it is not a good idea, and I believe this is in line with what was said by the committee that studied this part of medical assistance in dying. It said many of the mental illness conditions, such as depression, could be treated. These are treatable conditions, not irremediable conditions, and some are glad to see this loophole closed.

The bill intends to:

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

We talked about this when Bill C-14 was in this place. At that time, we were not sure about the method of application of medical assistance in dying, whether it could be done with a prescription or not, and there was a concern: What if the procedure went wrong and a person cannot give consent? What do we do then? I am glad to see that situation was addressed in the bill.

Overall, those are my concerns with Bill C-7, and I think the government needs to go back to the drawing board on it. As 50% of the Canadian public seem to be concerned about the existing bill, such as people with disabilities and mental illness, let us go back to the drawing board.

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

Madam Speaker, in 2016, the Alberta Court of Appeal unanimously granted a 58-year-old woman, known as E.F., access to medical assistance in dying. She suffered from severe conversion disorder, which meant involuntary muscle spasms that radiated from her face causing her severe, constant pain and migraines. Her eyelid muscles spasmed shut, rendering her effectively blind. Her digestive system was ineffective and she went without eating for up to two days. She had trouble sleeping, and because of digestive problems she lost significant weight and muscle mass. She was not ambulatory a needed to be carried or use a wheelchair. Her quality of life, on the court's record, was non-existent. The court also noted that the applicant's husband and adult children were supportive of her decision.

Does the member agree that E.F. should have had access to medical assistance in dying?

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

Madam Speaker, I am not a lawyer, and I think these issues are best decided in the courts.

The Supreme Court, which studied the Carter decision originally, said there had to be an irremediable condition with a reasonably foreseeable death. Although there is definitely suffering in the situation described by the member, it does not seem like death was reasonably foreseeable, so it would not have met the Supreme Court's decision.

Until the Supreme Court has a chance to weigh in on the Quebec court's decision, it would be unrealistic for a person who is not a lawyer to weigh in.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech and I thank her for that. I want to express my sincere condolences on the loss of her mother. I know how that feels.

The member did raise some interesting issues. The act is slated for a comprehensive review in June. It will also prevent intense suffering.

This is certainly an emotional debate, but I would like to hear the member's thoughts on what happened with Nicole Gladu and Jean Truchon in Quebec.

I would like to know what she thinks of the court deadline. If this law is not passed, we will have inconsistent legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

The courts in Quebec made a decision, and until it is overruled, it is clear that the practice in Quebec is going to be to allow people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to have medical assistance in dying. That means there is a different practice in Quebec from the rest of the country, until the courts can determine whether or not that is constitutional. That is the step that was missing: finding out if the Supreme Court agreed with the Quebec court's decision. I think that should have proceeded before the bill came forward here.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to tell the member how sorry I am for her mother's passing this fall.

One of the things you spoke about was how important palliative care is and that it was available to her. However, there are other places in the country where palliative care is not as available or the quality is not as good.

Do you feel that if we had a better palliative care system, maybe people would not be looking at assisted suicide as much?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I remind the member that he is to address his questions and comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for an excellent question, because, in fact, countries have studied this. About 95% of people who have good quality palliative care choose to live as well as they can for as long as they can.

The Liberal government pledged $3 billion over five years, which was changed to be over 10 years, and now that the framework is in place, we are looking for a whole bunch of fixes, such as infrastructure to do virtual palliative care, training for paramedics to be in rural and remote places, training for medical professionals and research. I really think it is the right plan, but we just need to get going on it. The sooner the better.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak at report stage of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code, medical assistance in dying, with which the government is seeking to dramatically expand the existing euthanasia regime in Canada.

The government claimed to want to protect vulnerable Canadians. It claimed to be open to our amendments. I see no evidence whatsoever for either of these claims.

Despite knowing full well the concerns that numerous groups had, including those disability rights groups, with the pre-prorogation version of the bill, the minister reintroduced the exact same legislation word for word. In fact, the bill even has the same number. The minister refused to pre-emptively adopt any of the proposed amendments, and has hidden behind the Truchon decision throughout this debate.

What of the Truchon decision? First, it is beyond unacceptable that the Liberal government did not appeal the Truchon decision to the Supreme Court. Truchon struck down vital protections for vulnerable Canadians, protections that this very government put in less than five years ago. Not only would appealing this decision have brought necessary clarity to the legal status of federal euthanasia legislation, it was also the right thing to do.

Instead, the minister used the Truchon decision, which struck down the reasonably foreseeable death requirement in the province of Quebec, to justify a wholesale abandonment of euthanasia safeguards put in place by the previous minister, the member for Vancouver Granville, and the creation of an advanced consent framework, open to any number of abuses.

That member for Vancouver Granville raised these concerns in this place. She said:

Nothing in the Truchon decision...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.

However, the minister refuses to listen. A statutory review of the impacts of Bill C-14, required by law, has not been undertaken. That review is mandatory to ensure that the safeguards in place are effectively protecting the elderly and infirm Canadians from manipulation and abuse. Instead of waiting to make these changes until the mandatory review was completed, the Minister of Justice pushed forward his own ideological stance. He blindly pushed Canadians into the dark instead of the light. Sadly, I am not surprised the minister would push this ideology on vulnerable Canadians. When Bill C-14 was introduced, after all, he opposed his own government's legislation. Now, as the minister, he is refusing to listen.

It has always been my priority and that of my colleagues to ensure that any legislation on euthanasia and assisted suicide includes strong safeguards for the most vulnerable in our society as well as for the conscience rights of health professionals. This is clearly not the minister's priority. Instead, by allowing advanced directives for assisted suicide without any legal assurance that individuals will have the opportunity to change their minds and with Liberal members voting down an amendment that would have required those seeking euthanasia to be given an opportunity to refuse it on the day in question, could mean that people could be legally euthanized in their sleep without any opportunity for them to change their mind. This is horrifying. How can the Liberals possibly justify this?

Inclusion Canada, a disability rights organization, has stated that the legislation is its “worst nightmare” and that it is a “moral affront” to equate euthanasia to an equality right. The minister still refuses to listen.

The most egregious, in my view, is the removal of the 10-day waiting period and the need for two independent witnesses. The Liberals also voted against a seven-day-waiting period amendment proposed at committee. They made a deliberate choice to strike down one of the most important safeguards for vulnerable people facing uncertain medical prognosis and have opened Pandora's box to same-day death.

Each of us can think of someone in our lives, perhaps a friend, a grandparent or even a spouse, who has received a serious medical diagnosis. The emotional impact of hearing that news can be overwhelming for both the patients and their families. It can cause depression, anxiety and a great fear of the unknown, especially now in the face of the ongoing pandemic.

Many of us can also think of loved ones who have received terminal diagnoses, only to beat their illness and live for years afterward. However, with the safeguards of two independent witnesses and a 10-day waiting period gone, such stories will be fewer and further between. Without a mandated length of time to collect themselves, to receive support from their families and to learn about treatment options or get second opinions, some people will make emotional decisions based on fear.

Taylor Hyatt, a young woman with a visible disability, shared her experience while suffering from pneumonia and in need of oxygen to help her to breathe. She said:

After taking a cab to the nearest hospital, I was immediately admitted. A couple hours – and many tests – later, the doctor was no closer to finding out what caused my illness. When she finally came to see me, at about 11pm, she said: “The only thing we know is that this infection affects your breathing. You may need oxygen. Is that something you’d want?” My answer was: “Well, of course!” She seemed surprised maybe, or unconvinced, so she asked again: “Are you sure?” I replied, “Well, of course!

Any non-disabled person would have received oxygen immediately, but instead the doctor asked her twice, leaving Taylor to believe that the doctor assumed that because she was disabled she may not want to live. What if Taylor had felt overwhelmed that day and requested euthanasia in a moment of weakness? At the time, she would have had 10 days to reconsider this choice. If this bill passes, she could have died that day and the world would have lost a great warrior for the rights of disabled Canadians. How can we allow for the legal possibility of such a tragedy?

Every Canadian should feel great shame for these failures. We are and we must be better than this. Every great or good society is judged by how it treats those deemed to be the least among them. How can we claim to be either great or good if we treat the Taylor Hyatts of our nation as if their lives are less valuable than our own. We must protect the innate dignity of every human life, knowing that nothing, not time, not illness, not disability, can ever take that dignity away.

Still, the minister refuses to listen. He is ignoring the statutory review but only to weaken protections, not to strengthen them. Not only has he torn down protections for vulnerable Canadians, he has placed medical professionals into an even more precarious position than the current regime by expanding the eligibility and thereby the number of medical professionals who are impacted. The Liberal members voted down an amendment that would have protected the charter rights of medical professionals, trampling their rights in the rush to a predetermined ideological end goal.

Tens of thousands of doctors believe, truly and wholeheartedly, that taking part in an assisted suicide breaches their calling to do no harm. Those beliefs are protected in our charter, but not in this, nor in any other federal legislation regarding euthanasia. Such a glaring omission makes it clear that this minister's priority is not to protect the rights of Canadian citizens but to push his ideology as far as possible. That is something I cannot and will not support.

I would plead with the other place to take the time needed for a sober second thought, removed as they are from the minister's ideological fixation, because the minister is refusing to listen.

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

Madam Speaker, in answer to my last question, the member for Sarnia—Lambton suggested that the Supreme Court in Carter had indicated that one's death needed to be reasonably foreseeable. Of course that is patently untrue. The criteria, established by our Supreme Court unanimously, are that one needs to have a sound mind, be of capacity, be suffering an irremediable illness and be suffering intolerably. I recognize that safeguards are required, but does the member agree that if those conditions are satisfied, the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court should be respected?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, what we are debating today in Bill C-7 are the changes that would be made as a result of the Truchon decision in Quebec. Nobody is questioning that Canadians have the right to choose MAID. Nobody is questioning that they should have access to that. We are questioning why the minister and the government are bent on removing all the safeguards that were put in place back in 2015 to protect the vulnerable.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, first off, I want to say that Quebec already has legislation on this matter.

What is the plan for harmonizing the provincial and federal laws?

I would also like to talk about my sister, who has had multiple sclerosis for several years. She has never considered medical assistance in dying, even though she suffers every day.

I think that people who choose to ask for medical assistance in dying have thought long and hard about that decision, on top of going through all of the steps involved, such as making a written request, signing the request, getting witnesses, and going through the 90-day, or three-month, assessment period. When someone is suffering greatly, three months is a long time.

In her speech, my hon. colleague said that she—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I must interrupt the hon. member for Trois-Rivières because the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek is rising on a point of order.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am hearing the French and the English at the same time and I cannot hear the interpretation of the member's question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The problem has been fixed. The member for Trois-Rivières has 30 seconds to repeat her question.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague was talking about uncertainty surrounding a diagnosis. Does she think that a doctor would give a diagnosis of a reasonably foreseeable death if they were unsure? I should think they would show some professionalism at that stage.

How does the member think the federal and provincial legislation can be harmonized to ensure that they work together?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I apologize for the difficulties we were having.

I do not believe that I was speaking about the uncertainty of a physician's diagnosis. I have been speaking about the safeguards that are being removed from this piece of legislation that allow for an individual to take time to reflect on the diagnosis they have received and to have conversations, not only with their family and friends but to look for a second opinion should they wish to do so.

With regard to how we ensure that federal legislation and provincial legislation work well together, we have previous legislation that has been in place since Bill C-14. We now see where a judge has made a ruling that the government should have appealed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will take a brief question, given the challenges we have had.

The hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, this bill has been through the House twice already, once last Parliament and once this Parliament. The government is not listening to the amendments coming from all parties and all stakeholders.

What would the member tell the government to do in order to make the bill as perfect as it should be?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech and in response to other questions, we are debating a bill that would, by removing the safeguards, dramatically expand the existing euthanasia regime in Canada. We need to protect vulnerable Canadians. We heard that over and over again from many stakeholders, as well as those representing disability groups. We really need to pay attention to what physicians and these advocates are saying to us.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. 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, Persons with Disabilities; the hon. member for Victoria, The Environment; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, International Trade.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate Bill C-7 at report stage. This is my first opportunity to speak to this really important piece of legislation.

The government has a deadline and of course is trying to rush this process through, but we have to remember that the Liberals prorogued Parliament for six weeks. I have to say, again, that the government's lack of planning is not my emergency. We had a number of days where important debate could have happened prior to the Liberals dealing with their deadline issues. I look at those six wasted weeks, and I believe we should have been sitting and dealing not only with the emergency issues but with some of the legislation that was critical.

I want to reflect with some general comments before I specifically talk about the report stage. In 2016, Parliament was debating the initial legislation for medical assistance in dying. It was very thoughtful debate. It is perhaps some of the most thoughtful, heart-wrenching debate that I have witnessed and been part of.

We have 338 parliamentarians, and we had legislation that was introduced in a partnership. One of the ministers who introduced it, as members are aware, was Dr. Philpott, who is no longer in this Parliament. She was a doctor, so she brought the lens of the health care provider to the conversation. The other minister was the former attorney general, who is now the member for Vancouver Granville. What we had was careful, very thoughtful debate by 338 parliamentarians, representing 37 million Canadians. We came up with what we thought was a reasonable framework for the first five years. Those five years is where we have to be very careful. This is new and it is something very profound. This is life-altering. We need to be watchful and worried about this.

I was very supportive of the original legislation in 2016 and all the way through, because I felt the ministers were listening, taking in amendments and adapting the legislation so that there was a level of comfort with it. In my riding, there was a lot of work in terms of polling, and I believe that most of my constituents were also favourable. It was in the 70% range. We had round table after round table.

When I voted for the original legislation, I believed I was representing my constituents and I was also representing how I felt about moving forward. I was also comforted by some very careful protections and safeguards.

What we have now is a judge from the Superior Court of Québec who made a decision, and a government that chose not to refer it to the Supreme Court. We know that the current Attorney General, right from the word go, wanted to expand that. He voted against the legislation, saying he did not feel it went far enough when it was originally presented. He was in the minority of parliamentarians. Clearly the court decision in Quebec aligned with his personal beliefs, as did the decision by the current government that it would not refer it to the Supreme Court.

From my perspective, this court ruling undermined Parliament's power to issue broad legislation aimed at protecting the rights and interests of the elderly, ill and disabled, and preventing suicide.

I find it kind of interesting which section of the charter the judge quoted. It was deemed to be violating and infringing on “life, liberty and security”. The word “life” is in the charter in section 7, but here we are, talking about dying as opposed to life.

I was comfortable, as I said, with the original legislation. In the debate at the time, I talked about the potential slippery slope and that we would have to safeguard against it. I knew that there were some unresolved issues, and the five-year review that was built into the original legislation should have been the opportunity for Parliament to, first of all, see what happened in the first five years of this very profound legislation and then look at those unresolved issues, as opposed to one court decision about one particular section of this.

Many people talk about a slippery slope. I am almost wondering if we are heading down an avalanche path, on which there are going to be no safeguards that remain, which will be a real problem.

I understand that, out of the 81 witnesses at the Senate, there was no one who actually supported the legislation. Many thought there were gaps, but there was also a number who, like in the other debate, felt that it needed to go further. However, there were 81 witnesses and no one said that this was a well-crafted piece of legislation.

Certainly, we are very aware that there have been people who have been vocal. The disability community has been very vocal in terms of its concerns about what this legislation would mean to its members. Regarding indigenous communities, I noticed a tweet from a very prominent indigenous person who said that had that 10-day waiting period not been there, they would have lost a relative before they should have lost that relative. We also have had many physicians who have expressed their concerns. I always recall an email that I got very early on that talked about how life can be very difficult and messy. He said that it spills all over the floor.

However, in terms of this pathway the government has chosen to deal with those very difficult concerns, there is no question that people have profound struggles in their lives, in terms of health issues and where their life path is taking them. I do not think anyone diminishes that, but we have only had this original legislation for five years, and it needs to have that five-year review process. It needs to be very carefully looked at.

The government suggests that it did a lot of engagement and says that it had an online process, which most people in my riding had no awareness of. The government says that it has struck the right balance. I will go back to my original comment. I support medical assistance in dying. I have witnessed the very difficult challenges that people have in their lives, but this particular piece of legislation is, in my opinion, poorly crafted. It is taking out many of the protections that we thought were important to have in place. The approach of the government now, contrasted to 2016, when it truly was listening to parliamentarians and truly caring about what different people had to say, is almost “my way or the highway”.

In conclusion, I supported the bill at second reading. I wanted to hear what the witnesses would say. There are parts of it that I can actually agree with, but on balance, I think we have not created the right balance. Unless there are some very dramatic changes, I will not be able to support it in terms of the next step.

Again, it is really important, and I urge all members to think very carefully about whether this has struck the right balance, when we have so many people from vulnerable communities who say it has not.

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

Madam Speaker, courts and rights are important because sometimes politicians listen to what the majority wants, and we infringe upon those rights. When measures are unpopular, it matters more than ever that we have courts and rights to depend upon.

When we look at the Supreme Court in Carter, it specifically interpreted the same section that the Quebec superior court judge interpreted, section 7, which is the right to life, liberty and security of the person. The word “life” was still in there. When we go back to that Carter criteria, unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court and unanimously upheld subsequently by the Alberta Court of Appeal, specifically we see the eligibility criteria of sound mind, having capacity, irremediable illness and unbearable suffering. I wonder why the member thinks that this notion of terminal illness ought to be an additional criterion.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, obviously the courts and their decisions are very important, but I also believe every single one of the 338 parliamentarians thoughtfully engaged their constituents and spent a lot of time reflecting on what is a really significant piece of legislation. A mechanism needs to be built in that lets us take a very cautious step, review it and then make sure things are okay. Then we need to look at the other pieces.

I do not think we need to look to other countries. We are one of the few countries around the world that has this kind of legislation, so taking those very cautious steps, reflecting and then perhaps readjusting the legislation is important. This should have been, in our opinion, referred to the Supreme Court. There are still many unresolved issues. It would have been better to have a more focused five-year review process.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure my colleague is aware that the Conservative Senate leader, when questioning the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, spoke to her about the case of Roger Foley.

The minister's response really spoke to my heart. As reported in the Toronto Star, she said:

...she has “grave concerns” about what happened to Foley.

“And I can tell you he's not alone.”

She said she “regularly” hears from people who are “appalled” to discover a family member with a disability has been offered what she called “unprovoked MAID.”

She then said:

“I think that has to stop ... It really speaks to the underlying systemic discrimination that we can’t not talk about anymore in this country.”

I wonder what the member's thoughts are on this statement from the individual who serves as the disability inclusion minister for our government.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, that was a very profound statement by the minister. I did talk a bit about the process in the Senate, but we needed to get it right in the House. We had proposed many amendments. We know the disability community is very concerned, and they have raised some very powerful specifics.

The current government did not support the amendments that were proposed. To be frank, I think we are going to have some more challenges when it hits the Senate. We should have made sure it was a good piece of legislation before sending it to the Senate.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I actually share all my colleague's views. I was not a member of the chamber back when the original legislation went through, however I have concerns here now about some of the changes and safeguards.

With her background, particularly as a nurse and in health care, could she talk a bit about the lack of options for palliative care, perhaps in her region of British Columbia, as a key concern many of us have not seen developed since the original legislation?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, palliative care throughout the country is a real gap, and it is an important part of our health care system. That was always to be part of how we move forward. Medical assistance in dying was to be part of a larger piece and was to be part of a comprehensive look at what was available in palliative care. We had a colleague who put forward a motion, and nothing was ever done with it.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House today as one of 338 federal lawmakers in Canada whose duty it is to make good laws that will have a positive impact on the lives of Canadians now and for generations to come.

The weight of my duties as an MP have become more evident as I have been serving my constituents through the pandemic. Canadians have been struggling intensely for nine months as a microscopic organism called the coronavirus has caused us to shut down our lives and institutions on so many levels.

Today, as I speak on Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code on medical assistance in dying, the weight of my parliamentary role is compounded because what I say today may be the most important thing I have spoken about in the 12 months I have been an MP. Today, I am compelled to speak from the depths of my heart, conscience and love for my fellow humans, and nothing less, because the very flow of life and death in our nation is in my hands and the hands of each member of this House through Bill C-7.

Bill C-7 came about after the Superior Court of Quebec struck down the reasonably foreseeable natural death clause of this legislation as unconstitutional. This ruling resulted from a case of two individuals with degenerative diseases, Truchon and Gladu, who had sought to repeal this provision in the law and access MAID. The judge asserted what the plaintiffs were really looking for was for the law to recognize equally the suffering, dignity and, ultimately, autonomy of people who, like them, are affected by serious and irremediable health problems without any hierarchy, whether death is near or not.

Bill C-7 would eliminate the clause that requires a 10-day waiting period between when MAID is requested and when it can be administered when death is reasonably foreseeable. Bill C-14, the original MAID bill that was given royal assent on June 17, 2016, already allowed for this period to be waived under specific circumstances, which are if two medical practitioners are both of the opinion that the person's death or the loss of their capacity to provide informed consent is imminent, or any shorter period is considered more appropriate by the first medical practitioner or nurse practitioner in the circumstances.

Many lawyers, doctors, families and advocates for individuals with disabilities feel Bill C-7 has gone beyond what the ruling in the Truchon-Gladu case called for. They feel Bill C-7 is discriminatory to the disabled and risks the abuse of MAID.

Amy Hasbrouck, a representative from the group Not Dead Yet, said this about the court ruling in a press interview: “Basically this decision is saying that as far as society's concerned, it's better to be dead than disabled”. Hasbrouck feels governments should improve services for people with severe disabilities to help improve their quality of life and allow them to continue living in their own homes.

This bill has also raised the concern of deepened challenges on the conscience rights of doctors. There are limited protections for the conscience rights of medical professionals already, and loosening restrictions will cause greater strife to those already uncomfortable with MAID. Throughout the debate, Bill C-7 has raised a lot of concern that as it expands MAID accessibility, it risks palliative care suffering. As a result, patients will view MAID as a better option. Unless there is more focus on improving and expanding palliative care so that palliative care is more accessible, MAID may appear to be the more practical solution for Canadians.

I now speak on Bill C-7 as a potential trigger to another pandemic within a pandemic. Canadians are currently experiencing multiple pandemics within the pandemic. They are struggling with depression and anxiety about their future because of economic uncertainties and collapse. They are facing social isolation. Although uncertain about the full ramifications of the coronavirus, in order to prioritize and protect the health and safety of Canadians, multiple tiers of government across our nation opted to take drastic measures throughout the pandemic with lockdowns and travel restrictions, which have infringed on some civil rights.

Social isolation is putting seniors in a mental health crisis. Recently, Nancy Russell, a 90-year-old woman living in a seniors home, chose MAID because she did not want to go through another lockdown or isolation this winter. According to some MAID practitioners, there is a trend of more reports of seniors interested in MAID and accelerating their timelines because of COVID.

I would like to ask each member in the House this: Is the passing Bill C-7, with its safeguards removed, during a pandemic, when Canadians are vulnerable to depression and suicide, a responsible and timely action? The government had the option to appeal this, but it chose not to.

I fully appreciate that the debate on Bill C-7 brings issues of compassion, dignified death, suffering and personal rights into a complex but profound discourse. Medically assisted death is complex, and debates on human rights are important, but in this time of severe and drastic measures to protect lives and keep Canadians safe from a virus that has the potential to take many lives, the government has entered into emergency mode. It has put health and safety above many important things.

We have allowed the economy to fall apart to flatten the curve and save lives. Canadians put a precedent on saving lives over some basic rights.

Rights do not exist in a vacuum. They exist to support the overarching vision and mandate, which I hope unifies all of us in the House, which is to protect the lives, sustenance and flourishing of humans; to ensure all people, regardless of who they are, their behaviour, ideology or capacity, to be functional in life; to protect their existence and sustenance needs; and to provide individuals with fair opportunities to dream and make the most of their lives. I understand the principles of debate and rights, but in the context of this pandemic we are facing, my humanity and my heart burn like a mother bear for the lives of Canadians.

In a recent report from the Canadian Mental Health Association, 3,800 Canadians died in 2018-19 after being admitted into hospitals for self-harm. With the stress, hopelessness and trauma created by the pandemic, that number is on the rise, especially for the most vulnerable.

In a survey held by CMHA in May during lockdowns, 38% of the people surveyed said that their mental health had declined due to COVID-19, 6% had suicidal thoughts and 2% had tried to harm themselves in response to COVID-19. Based on this survey, if there are 30 million adult Canadians, then it would mean that 1.8 million adult Canadians have had suicidal thoughts and 600,000 have tried to harm themselves as a result of the challenges caused by the pandemic.

The count for the number of Canadians who have died from COVID-19 is 12,211 from yesterday's numbers. If only 6% of the 3,000 Canadians who participated in the survey had suicidal thoughts, that would still be 180 people. What does that translate to in Canada's entire population?

More survey results show that not everyone is affected equally. While 6% of the general population have had suicidal thoughts since the outbreak of COVID-19, suicidal contemplation has been happening with 18% of people already struggling with their mental health, 15% of people with a disability, 14% of people with low incomes and 16% of people who are indigenous. This is not fair.

This is the question I would like to ask all members: Do we, as members, take mental health seriously? Do we recognize that extraordinary suicide prevention must be part of our COVID response? Do we see the danger of passing a bill such as Bill C-7 in the context of a pandemic where we see rising numbers of mental health challenges and suicidal contemplation?

The mental health side of the pandemic does not end with a vaccine, because healing from trauma and financial restoration takes time. What is the message we want to send to the Canadian public right now as parliamentarians? In the name of saving lives, we have allowed families to be separated, and we have allowed businesses and institutions to be pulverized, but what support are we providing to counter the depression and hopelessness that comes from these drastic measures? We should be more focused on creating more access to counselling and mental health support.

For those who say that mental health is a provincial issue, I would say to them that mental health is a serious issue and one that all tiers of government must come to the table to discuss and implement solutions for. We have a responsibility as lawmakers to look at the big picture and understand the time we are in right now.

We do not see suicides reported, but all of us know someone, whether directly or by one or two degrees of separation, who has attempted or committed suicide. Let us be sober. The bill before us could open doors to a suicide pandemic during this pandemic. Our duty is to pass legislation that protects the life, sustenance and flourishing of our fellow humans and not make them more vulnerable and susceptible to death.

Canadians need hope. Will my colleagues, with a clear conscience, be able to say that they did everything they could to prevent suicide? Will they be able to say with conviction that they had helped someone find hope and not have to resort to death?

I want to be wrong. I hope there is no suicide pandemic, which the unpredictable waves and lockdowns of COVID-19 would exacerbate, but the government has chosen to put the priority of saving lives at a high cost. Were the drastic measures reasonable or too severe? I think most Canadians would say that saving lives was worth it. Will it be worth saving lives by stopping the spread of a culture of suicide through a bill like Bill C-7 during this pandemic?

The very life breath of Canadians are in our hands right now. I cannot support the bill in the name of mental health and saving lives in this pandemic. I do not want blood on my hands for the death of any Canadians who were inspired by the passing of Bill C-7 to cope with mental health challenges and hopelessness during the pandemic, especially when we do not have enough to give them more hope.

Being a parliamentarian comes with responsibility. Ideology comes with responsibility. Legislation comes with responsibility. Legislation is not separate from the current plight Canadians face. I encourage every member to examine this bill, recognizing there is not enough hope to safeguard against the dangers of Bill C-7.

[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 passion of the member in expressing and sharing her thoughts with regard to the legislation. Unfortunately, with the very small amount of time I have in the form of a question, there are many statements I would like to make that I am not able to. Suffice it to say that mental health is very important, as is palliative care. These are all important issues and some of the reasons why I am not saying we as a government stand alone. We have been pushing that agenda for years now. By pushing that agenda, we have also invested hundreds of millions, going into the billions, of dollars over the last number of years.

The question I have for the member is this. We recognize that all lives are of equal value. There is no doubt about that. Going forward with this legislation is not just supported by one political party: amendments were brought forward and opposition parties are supporting the legislation. It seems the consensus of the 337 members of the House is to continue to move forward, given the importance of this issue to the individual.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, my speech today has to do with the timing of the bill because of the unique circumstances we are in. If we were not in a pandemic, I would not have given this speech.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not agree with the principles put forward by my colleague.

Medical assistance in dying seeks to help those people. They are vulnerable, but they still have all their faculties and can make decisions.

The member spoke about discrimination against people with disabilities. I disagree with her because people with disabilities also have the right to choose whether to live or die with dignity, regardless of their illness. There are professionals taking care of these people. They have access to mental health care and palliative care.

It is unreasonable to use extreme examples like you did. I think that this legislation will support these people and they need that support. This bill should therefore be passed. Did you read the bill carefully before mentioning these things and expressing your point of view?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would like to remind the hon. member that she must address her comments to the Chair and not to another member directly.

The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not disqualifying the thoughtfulness and value of these discussions. Again, I am raising this in the House today because of the unique circumstances of the pandemic we are in, which is putting many people at risk. The very sound bites, the dialogue and the contemplation of suicide should not be exacerbated by having something like this to inspire people in the wrong direction. I am not talking about those who are legitimately seeking the assistance of MAID to find dignified death. I am speaking in the context of the larger Canadian population in this pandemic.

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

Madam Speaker, the member knows that mere hopelessness or experiencing depression because one has lost one's business in the pandemic would not make one eligible for MAID. Even drawing that connection to suggest one would have blood on one's hands, I think, is absurd.

I have a simple question. What are the criteria the Supreme Court established in Carter? It is very simple.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to repeat again so there is no misunderstanding that I raise these points today not to undermine anyone's values or perspective of MAID, but we are in a unique time when people are vulnerable. It would be a tragedy to see them inspired to choose suicide. Whether they seek MAID or not, the whole concept of suicide is dangerous right now in the times we are in.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, we are debating a matter today of life and death. This is not an easy topic for anyone to think or talk about. I cannot imagine how much harder it is for people who find themselves in a position where they are faced with a choice between the two. It is a choice that directly affects suffering individuals. Each of their loved ones will also be affected. What makes it even more complicated and difficult is that it involves people having vulnerable moments and often, for many reasons, they were already disadvantaged members of our communities.

How we treat our most vulnerable neighbours reflects back on our personal and social character. It makes all the difference if someone who is struggling receives support to have a fulfilling and meaningful life, or if they are mistreated and neglected. It also gives the rest of us a good or bad example to follow in how we should treat each other. We have to consider all of this when it comes to Bill C-7. There are way too many problems with it, but for now I want to step back and focus on the heart of this issue.

Many brave and passionate voices from the disability community have stepped forward to call out the dangers of stigma and discrimination in the government's bill. One of those voices is Roger Foley's. He was born with a severe neurodegenerative disease and his condition got worse. He was denied the necessary supports for continuing to live at home. He has been speaking out about his troubling experiences while he is in hospital. According to him, the health care system has not provided him with any assisted home care team of his choosing. Instead, among other things, he has been offered the option of assisted suicide. From his hospital bed in London, Ontario, he told the justice committee his story and further said:

What is happening to vulnerable persons in Canada is so wrong. Assisted dying is easier to access than safe and appropriate disability supports to live.

Speaking from his experience living with a terminal illness, he had been calling for assisted life before he should ever have had to consider assisted death. The idea that the opposite could be true here in Canada should be unsettling for all of us. There is definitely a problem for the population with disabilities, in terms of aggravating stigma and discrimination towards them. Other people are at risk too.

If someone is thinking of ending their life, we know that it is most often related to mental health challenges or their emotional and social needs. Recently we heard the story of the late Nancy Russell, who was a senior living in long-term care during the COVID lockdown. She maintained an engaging and outgoing life. During the first wave, the usual activities she enjoyed were restricted. At one point, she was confined to her room for two weeks. Her family noticed an unmistakable decline in her life from the first wave. Her daughter was quoted in the media as recalling that:

It was contact with people that was like food to her, it was like oxygen. She would be just tired all the time because she was under-stimulated.

When news of a second wave came, along with the possibility of another lockdown, Nancy decided to apply for MAID. She was approved for it and died this past October. Her decision, within the larger issue of our response to COVID, is a separate discussion, but her daughter's words are important for us to consider in this different context. When deprived of our human needs, it is easy for someone to consider such an option. On the other hand, whenever these needs are met, it can have a remarkable effect.

I also want to talk about Harold, who passed away this summer. His daughter reached out to share with me the story of what happened near the end of his life when his wife, Barb, was visiting him. I will once again quote: “A COVID-19 restriction allowed window visits only. Because of being hearing impaired, he could see his wife Barb through the glass, but could not hear her. At times, staff were available to repeat Barb's words but not usually. Three weeks ago, Harold's life declined. Barb was informed she could come inside the facility to visit, provided she followed their protocols: masks, gloves, handwashing; only visit within his private room, etc. These preventative measures seemed reasonable. These visits continued for three days and each day Harold's health improved.”

She also included this reflection in her message, “Face-to-face physical and emotional contact directly influenced Harold's well-being, and now Barb is left with the lingering remorse that she was not allowed to hold her husband's hand as he breathed his last breath. It is well known that face-to-face human connection fuels wellness and, as end of life naturally draws near, the end for togetherness is just as real.”

She makes a good observation about the power of social and physical connection. Whether we are dealing with the case of Roger Foley's physical condition or emotional and relational suffering, we have to make sure that we do not misidentify any cries for help when somebody asks to die.

On a similar point, I want to make sure we consider the great potential for struggling Canadians to not find the help they might desperately need. For the justice committee study on Bill C-7, physicians, together with vulnerable Canadians, submitted a statement signed by doctors from every province. As of today, over 1,000 signatures are on that document. They explained the problem this way:

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.

The lack of available alternatives and support could only make it more difficult. The same statement notes the following:

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”, and where 70% of citizens nearing the end of life still have no access to basic palliative care services. Yet MAID has been deemed an essential service under the Canada Health Act and palliative care has not. This bill creates the conditions for cheap and easy death through euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Without addressing the root causes of suffering or actually providing someone with different options, it is impossible for a real choice to be made.

Finally, I share the concerns of advocates for people with disabilities and for other causes, that this bill would help to normalize suicide in situations similar to the stories I have shared and more generally.

In 2020 and beyond, there is a real risk for an increase of suicidal thinking. This year has pushed many to the brink of despair. Now is the time for us to live up to our international reputation as a nation of compassion and caring. We should offer those who are struggling a helping hand, not a cold shoulder of indifference.

In my province of Saskatchewan, in particular, there is a suicide crisis in parts of the indigenous community. I know that many indigenous leaders and communities have raised this concern in regard to the expansion of assisted suicide. In 2016, during the last debate in Parliament to legalize assisted suicide for the first time, the former Liberal member for Winnipeg Centre, Robert-Falcon Ouellette, spoke about the impacts that he believed this would have on indigenous communities.

One of the overarching themes from his speech was that by allowing suicide to become a way out of suffering, we are encouraging a spirit of death in indigenous communities. Rather than telling indigenous peoples that if they are suffering their lives are no longer of value, we should first improve the conditions of their lives and help them carry their burdens.

It is hard to know where to begin with fixing the government's plan for assisted suicide. Bill C-7 rapidly expands the framework of MAID, at a rate never seen before. In this effort, the government has ignored its own framework set in Bill C-14 and the advice of hundreds, and even thousands, of medical professionals.

Where is the expansion of palliative care and other support? How long before we go even further in offering assisted death without first better providing people assisted life?

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

Madam Speaker, I find this debate very emotional. These are life-and-death circumstances that we are talking about, and there is a finality to this. When somebody dies, they have died. They are not coming back.

I believe that we need to balance personal autonomy with the protection of vulnerable people. A concern that I have is in regard to palliative care, and even its advocates. If somebody is a vulnerable person, maybe they have no family and maybe they have no friends. Maybe they have a disability and have been admitted to a hospital or are living in a long-term care facility. It is very troubling to me that MAID could be offered and nobody would be there to advocate for them. It is very concerning to me that it could be proposed.

Could the member talk about palliative care, and how we need more access? There was no five-year review from the previous legislation. Could the member comment on the need for more palliative care across Canada, and especially in rural and remote regions?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, palliative care is such an important part of our society and we are lacking greatly in that area. In particular, I grew up in a rural and remote community as well and there was just not the option for palliative care there. People were moving out of their communities, out of their homes and away from their families. Quite honestly, families are the primary caregivers whom people need and want to have with them when they are in palliative care, but they also need access to those facilities. I find it so alarming that here we are, today, prioritizing medical assistance in dying instead of prioritizing palliative care in the country.

[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, during the debate on this important issue, we often hear reference to palliative care and how critically important that is. It is encouraging, to a certain degree, to hear the Conservatives talk about why we need to enhance and ensure we have an extensive palliative care system.

What role does the member believe the federal government has in looking at ways we can improve and expand palliative care in Canada? Does the Conservative Party believe we should be playing a stronger role in that?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the first thing we need to do is listen to the advocates for palliative care. They have very compelling testimony for enhanced and expanded palliative care. We also need to ensure that we work hand in hand with the provinces. The federal government has a role to play, particularly in ensuring that the infrastructure for palliative care facilities can be built in our small towns and rural and remote communities and ensuring that people of all communities have access to quality palliative care.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that what we are doing is admirable, since these are major issues of life or death.

I commend everyone here today. What they are putting forward is very well reasoned and carefully contemplated. Personally, I like to connect with people. What concerns me about this prolonged debated is time. I know that we must take our time with an issue like this, but we must also rely on what we have learned.

Our society is highly educated. Our scientists are up to date. In our society we have the ability to get the tools we need to do things properly. I want to ask you, are you questioning the abilities of our leading scientists, our doctors and our experts in medical assistance in dying?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member to address the Chair.

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am not one to doubt scientists and people who have committed their life to their field. However, what we are missing is prioritizing people's right to live, their right to life. We are missing that as we have this discussion today.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am really honoured to be standing in the House as we debate this very important bill, Bill C-7, in response to the Truchon v. the Attorney General of Canada.

My husband and I were discussing this last night. I can recall the night of the vote on Bill C-14. I had held town halls in my riding, sent post cards, all these different things. It was about a fifty-fifty split among constituents who wanted to see MAID pass. That day I voted for that bill. I thought there were some very important provisions in it which we had to talk about. However, as we move forward with Bill C-7, I have strong concerns.

I decided to return to the speech I made in 2016, and I wanted to share an excerpt of it. We have been going back to people's speeches to see where they were at that time. I am pretty much where I was in 2016 with respect to better safeguards. I will quote from my speech on May 20, 2016:

My role as a parliamentarian is to do the fact-finding, speaking to the constituents I represent, and making sure that I get the right message to make this decision and do what is right for my constituency and all Canadians. From that, I decided to do a lot of town halls ... I sent letters ... one-on-one meetings ... I also received many email ... campaigns.

After that, I received a letter from Dr. Carroll Harder, a physician in my riding. I want to share her from 2016 email. She wrote:

I am e-mailing in response to your letter I received requesting information on my concerns about Bill C-14. Thank you for requesting physician input. I certainly appreciate having the opportunity to weigh-in as a stakeholder in these decisions. This topic is obviously very important to me and I am trying to understand all of the implications of this for me and for my patients.

I appreciate the steps that have been put in place to provide checks and balances that will hopefully prevent abuse of this system by family or health care providers. I am concerned that many groups are calling for less restrictions than those that are currently in place dictating who applies for this and who is ineligible. I would ask that you, as our representative, continue to advocate for stringent restrictions with multiple layers of accountability to prevent abuse of this legislation.

Based on that foundation, I started to look at Bill C-7. I have watched the hours and hours of committee business. Excellent amendments were proposed but were turned down. I thought my vote would be yes, but I have turned it into a no. I have not been swayed by the government and I have not been swayed by anything other than those disability groups that are very concerned about the bill. Then I go back to where I was in 2016. The point is that our job is to protect all Canadians. Our job is to represent Canadians.

What I see in the bill just does not fit. When I look at what the doctor has requested and at all the testimony from the justice committee, I do not think we are doing due justice. Tomorrow we will be celebrating International Day for Persons with Disabilities. We are not doing them justice. We are not listening to them and that is why I have this huge concern.

Unfortunately, because these amendments were left out of the bill, I have changed my vote to no. We had a great opportunity to make this a better bill in committee.

I take all these social issues to heart. I speak to people and they help make these decisions. I think about a gentleman whom I just spoke to on Saturday, Rick Arkell. I recall speaking to Rick years and years ago when I was constituency assistant working for Joe Preston. I recall him calling the office. When I spoke to him on Saturday, he said he wanted MAID.

I know that when I voted on Bill C-14 and made that decision to support, it was the right decision. However, when he and I talked about this, he too understood why I could not move forward on this. This gentleman has multiple complications such as diabetes and heart issues. When combined, they are making his life very difficult. I asked him if he could please send me some more information because I wanted to share his story. This story is not about people who do not want it; it is about people who do want, but ensuring precautions are there.

Instead of his being upset with me for saying I was going to vote against it, he asked how he could help because he knew we wanted better legislation. It comes down to that.

This is a very sad story. As I spoke to him on Saturday, I was not sure what my next steps were. I was not sure if I should go over there and try to counsel him or if I should be a parliamentarian and just ensure that the legislation was right. I am still caught on that.

For a number of years he has been trying to get medical assistance in dying under Bill C-14. This is his email:

“My euthanasia target is 60 days or less. I value and respect your point, however, I most assuredly am not going to enjoy the summer or any time thereafter and God willing, I will be dead in six months or less, whether by MAID, naturally or do it yourself. I have taken 250,000 milligrams of acetaminophen prior to our meeting as I did with Dr. Kay, thinking of the tears, groaning, crying in pain, stumbling and face plants, which were not necessary in fact, not to mention I was attempting to demonstrate that I can live independently. I do the same any day. I go out in public, appointments, shopping, etc. As I mentioned, I am not seeking immediate death since I am working to get my affairs in order as quickly as possible and to find homes for my cats. In order to do that, I need to remain independent. In the interim, I am seeking ways to cope such as I showed you. I still definitely want to seek assurance and peace of mind that MAID approval would provide.”

It is really interesting because we are talking today about witnesses and all those different things that are necessary to ensure people can go through this process.

We talked about palliative care. I am watching this man who is suffering, who does not have an option because palliative care is not available. We can sit here and say that MAID is very different. MAID is different if people cannot get it and do not have palliative care. That is why people say let us go for MAID because there is nothing better.

We just heard it from my friend from Port Moody—Coquitlam. She talked about someone who was willing to go through MAID rather than being in lockdown any longer. Those are huge concerns and we need to listen to that. These are people's stories. We need good legislation and we do not need to put them at more risk. That is what I see in the bill.

When we have had disabilities groups come forward, when the Senate, under a pre-committee study, has 91 different people testifying against this legislation, that should tell us something. It is not one or two people from specific groups who are talking. They are Canadians and Canadian families that are bringing forward their personal stories on what they go through each and every day. We are not making this right. By making MAID a better program so people can get it easier is one thing. However, we should ensure we have a full program that allows choice. I am fearful that this does not offer choice. It offers a choice to take MAID or to live uncomfortably. When I look at Rick, I think this is what is happening to him.

I am also very fortunate because I represent the great organization ARCH. ARCH is located in the community of Lambeth in London. It wrote to senators, and I want to leave members with this:

Dear Senators,

ARCH Disability Law Centre (“ARCH”) makes this submission as part of your pre-study of Bill C-7 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).

ARCH is a legal clinic dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of persons with disabilities in Ontario. ARCH also advocates for the rights of persons with disabilities nationally and internationally. ARCH has expertise in Canadian human rights and equality rights law as it relates to persons with disabilities, national and provincial accessibility laws...

I recognize that I do not have a lot of time, so I will sum this up. ARCH is extremely concerned with this. It put forward concerns because it was looking at effective safeguards, which it does not see in the bill. It is clear to me that if people are telling us that this is not going to work for them, and there is a whole lot of them, then we should start listening. That is why I am concerned with the government moving forward with the legislation without including the amendments that have been put forward. It is not doing what is best for Canadians.

I will continue to encourage the government to please think again. Do what is best for all Canadians and let us put the interests of all Canadians first.

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

Madam Speaker, we know that part of the fear and anxiety for people in the disability community, who oftentimes are living in poverty and without the resources they need to live in dignity, is that they are going to be faced with a really impossible choice between a life of poverty and suffering or a premature death. While Parliament cannot change the Truchon decision, one of the things we can do is put in place appropriate income supports for people living with disabilities so they are not forced to live below the poverty line.

Would the member support the federal government moving to establish a disability income support program that would ensure that any person living with a disability in Canada would not forced to live below the poverty line?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think this is one of the things we see. As I indicated, I was a constituency assistant for 11 years, so I had the opportunity to see a lot of Canadians who were on the Ontario disability support program, had benefits through WSIB or had Canada pension plan disability benefits. This is not a lot of money.

We know that the cost of living has increased substantially, especially through the COVID-19 pandemic, so this needs to be reassessed. Lots of people are living without the means to have a proper roof over their heads, while paying their bills, putting food on their tables and enjoying life.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for always telling us about what the people in her riding are talking about.

With respect to this legislation, I wonder if she could talk about the people in long-term care, who have been very isolated in this pandemic. I want to pick up on the theme that my colleague from Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam mentioned about the dangers there, as people like them might want to take advantage of assisted suicide.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is one of the concerns we are seeing. We know there have been many challenges during this pandemic, specifically with mental health and people who are in isolation.

I can look within my own family. My parents are not in long-term care but they are 80 and 84. I worry about their isolation within their own home, given the fact that they are not leaving their home very often. I think my mom has left twice in the last eight months. I can only imagine what it is like for residents in long-term care homes, where people are not able to come in to see them. They are not able to see their grandchildren. A lot of times, the spark of their lives is their family.

We have to work urgently to make sure we are dealing with rapid testing for COVID-19 and make sure that all of the supports for people living with disabilities or in long-term care homes are taken care of. We need to do better, and I am afraid we are not doing it under the government.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague who just gave her speech.

The thing that most concerns me is the issue of access to palliative care in Mégantic—L'Érable. I know that many people back home have some concerns about that because this type of care is not always available. I would like to know whether the same is true in her corner of the country and to hear her comments on that.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, throughout the entire country we are seeing issues within our long-term care homes, and we have seen throughout this pandemic what is happening. When we are looking at medical assistance in dying, all of the factors that are bundling up on our seniors are making life look hopeless.

I am a person of hope. Sometimes I call myself a Pollyanna. I always believe there has to be a light at the end of the tunnel. I do not think the government is providing enough light to make sure people know we can do better.

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

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak again to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying) at report stage.

I will touch on two key amendments the Conservatives were seeking, namely to maintain the reflection period of 10 clear days between when the request for MAID is signed and then received, and to extend the assessment period from 90 to 120 days for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. Originally, these were amendments we put forward at committee. In fact, these are just two of several amendments we worked really hard to achieve in good faith. They were all rejected by the Liberals.

Therefore, I would first contend that the bill we have received back from the committee demonstrates a lack of concern for the voices of opposition, and not merely those of our Conservative opposition, but rather those of the differently abled and the medical experts whose concerns we compassionately championed. We must thoughtfully consider the alarm of Canadians who are passionately opposed to what Bill C-7 is now proposing.

Bill C-7 would eliminate the requirement of waiting 10 clear days after being approved for the procedure, effectively allowing for a system of death on demand. As we heard at committee, this is troubling for those whose lives have been affected by disability. For those who want to live with dignity, Bill C-7 presents and very clear and present danger. That is what they are saying.

Let us refer to what witnesses told us at committee.

Roger Foley, who lives with a severe neurodegenerative disease, told the committee this:

With the Assisted Dying Regime in Canada, I have experienced a lack of care and assistance for which I need to live.... I have been abused and berated because I have disabilities, and told my care needs are too much work. My life has been devalued. I have been coerced into assisted death by the abuse, neglect, lack of care and threats.

Mr. Foley went on to say, “Assisted Dying is easier to access than safe and appropriate disability supports to live!... You have turned your back on disabled and elderly Canadians!” I found that very difficult to hear.

Dr. Ewan Goligher, a physician-scientist, was clear in his assertion that Bill C-7 singles out those with disabilities when, in many cases, death can be prevented. He said:

Bill C-7 declares that an entire class of people—those with physical disabilities—are 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.

As the CBC similarly noted, “While reflecting understandable empathy for often-severe suffering, the bill conforms to an ableist presumption that a life with disability or chronic illness is less worth living.”

Krista Carr, executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada, spoke on behalf of families of those with intellectual disabilities who fear their loved ones will be left without a choice. She said, “families now fear that their family members will be encouraged to end their lives. Rather than addressing their suffering, as we do for every other Canadian who tries to end their suffering through suicide, their lives are now judged as not worth saving.”

This claim by Ms. Carr was reinforced by the testimony of Taylor Hyatt, who bravely shared a personal story. Having been admitted to the ER with difficulty breathing, she was advised by the doctor that an infection she had could require oxygen. Ms. Hyatt enthusiastically agreed to the use of oxygen, but found it troubling that her answer came as a surprise to the doctor. I know Taylor and she is full of energy and life. It was at this point that Taylor came to a stark realization. She said:

In that moment, I would have been able to refuse treatment and be permitted to die. Or, in a moment of weakness, bought into the stereotype that my life wasn't worth living and requested and received a lethal injection. Breathing supports would be considered standard treatment for a non-disabled person in my situation, especially somebody in their mid-20s as I was.... If this bill goes through, how many more disabled people at their lowest moments could have a drastically different and decidedly unwanted ending to their story?

We on this side of the House recognize that Canadians' tolerance for assisted dying has evolved over the past four and a half years. In fact, a 2020 Angus Reid Institute poll found that four in five Canadians believe that it should be easier to make their own end-of-life-decisions, compared with 73% four years ago. However, the same poll found that 65% believe the option of assisted suicide and euthanasia has the potential to intensify pressure on those with disabilities to choose death as a means to avoid being a burden to others. They want lawmakers and the courts to give significant weight to this concern.

In my view, C-7 abandons the concerns of witnesses and the majority view of Canadians. Appropriate safeguards, such as the 10-day reflection period and a 120-day assessment period for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable, are absolutely warranted, so why are the Liberals denying this?

My second point as to why the bill should not proceed is that it is the government’s clear intention to go beyond the scope of the Quebec Court of Appeal’s Truchon decision.

One of the key elements of the bill, for me, is the about-face the government has taken. Less than five years ago, Bill C-14 was passed. It was a bill that I, and many in my party, have opposed in principle from its introduction to the present day. However, many Canadians took solace in the fact that Bill C-14 contained a vital element of parliamentary accountability. Clause 10 mandated a five-year review, wherein the provisions of the assisted suicide law, as well as the state of palliative care in Canada, would be fulsomely studied by the House of Commons and Senate before the end of June 2021. This was our responsibility.

This vital element of Bill C-14 has been ignored by the government. As parliamentarians, we have now been tasked to consider a massive expansion of assisted suicide and euthanasia without a clear enough understanding of Bill C-14’s effectiveness, enforceability and areas of acute concern.

It bears repeating something from my speech in October. Rather than appeal Truchon to the Supreme Court of Canada or wait for the all-important five-year review of assisted death in Canada, the Liberals have chosen to run with the Truchon decision and legislate on an expansion of assisted death for the entire country. Not only that, but the bill far exceeds the scope of Truchon.

Indeed, during Oral Questions on November 23, the member for Vancouver Granville, the former minister of justice and attorney general, and author of the original MAID legislation, called into question the government’s effort to eliminate the 10-day reflection period and reconfirmation of consent through Bill C-7. She said:

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.

The government clearly has its own agenda here. The Liberals appear determined to eliminate safeguards for the most vulnerable when they were not instructed to do so. This is coupled with the fact that the House has not had the benefit of a fulsome study of the original MAID legislation. The House should proceed with the adoption of our very reasonable amendments, as Canadians want them.

Finally, I would like to reiterate a point from my last intervention on the bill. The Liberals continue to lag on a national strategy for palliative care, but at the same time they are moving forward on more accessibility to MAID. The Liberals broke their promise to invest $3 billion in long-term care, including palliative care, and have yet to bring Canadians the national strategy on palliative care they promised and agreed to. Just as 80% of Canadians believe it should be easier to make end-of-life decisions, 70% of Canadians continue to live without any access to palliative care. That is why the Liberals’ approach is nonsensical.

The Angus Reid poll found that 62% of Canadians want those in this place to give due attention to the concern that our health care system might begin to ignore long-term care and chronic disease among the elderly as MAID becomes more widely accessible and routine. We are seeing this happen.

Furthermore, seven in 10 Canadians want us, as lawmakers, to consider whether increased access to assisted suicide and euthanasia will mean less investment in traditional palliative care. I dread that, but in my view that situation is already unfolding.

I refer to the Delta Hospice Society, where 10 hospice beds are at risk of being defunded because of its refusal to provide assisted suicide to its patients. The Delta Hospice Society believes that MAID is distinct from, and violates the very purpose of, the palliative care that it is very proud to provide. Indeed, President Angelina Ireland has been clear that the intention is not to overturn MAID. The society is not a threat. It only wants to uphold its approach to the end-of-life care that so many Canadians want and deserve but do not have access to.

A majority of Canadians would side with the position of the Delta Hospice Society. Again referring to the Angus Reid poll, 55% of Canadians reported religious hospitals should be free to refuse to participate in MAID on moral grounds.

Any attempt to cheapen the value of palliative care should be of concern to the House. In the words of Dr. Goligher:

The goal of health care is to help the patient flourish. Palliative care is about helping the patients flourish even as they go through the dying process. I think anything that accelerates or hastens that process and doesn't give the opportunity for reflection and so on is of serious concern.

MAID is antithetical—

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

I am sorry, but we have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the member's example about the disabled individual who had a very different experience than a Canadian without a disability might experience. I heard a similar story about an individual who, it was apparent, had a physical disability and when suffering a seizure, the very first question asked was if they had a do-not-resuscitate, DNR, order.

Why is it important that Parliament give a thoughtful review, as was committed at the five-year mark, instead of having this hasty process, which goes beyond the Quebec court decision and was not appealed by the government? Why is having a proper review, where stakeholders, including from the disability community, can speak to parliamentarians, testify about their concerns, have their questions answered and have the government answer for why it would make those decisions? Why is that process important and why would that be preferential to what we are seeing happening right now?

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

Madam Speaker, there is such concern in my heart for the fact that the government is choosing on so many occasions to go over and above its own responsibilities within the realm of our Parliament, where 338 members made the decision to bring Bill C-14 forward with the understanding that the proper oversight would take place. This is a huge issue for Canada and we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to do the due research to find out how well it has been functioning and if it has been abused. We are clearly hearing stories over and over again now and yet the government has chosen to move ahead and rush this.

Those who wanted to speak to that review have had to try to make their voices heard and known in the midst of the presentation of Bill C-7. We know that many of them were shut down at committee. Testimony time was not extended and very many reports and dockets were not submitted because there was not time. Thank goodness that time is being taken in the Senate. I feel that the government has abused its responsibilities.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a very significant piece of legislation. I support it completely. Amendments were attempted by the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for the Greens in the committee, but it is terribly important that we not conflate medical assistance in dying, as a number of Conservatives have done in this debate. My hon. friend did not do this in her speech, but did refer to “assisted suicide”. Some speeches have just called it “suicide” and euthanasia. That is not the effect of this legislation. This legislation is for medical assistance in dying for a very limited group of people who would qualify and specifically does not include mental illness.

I ask my hon. colleague to consider again whether there is a cost to people across this country who believe the rhetoric of the Conservatives and now experience additional anxiety and a thought that Canada is losing its moral compass, because the rhetoric being used in this debate is unworthy of the very good people who are using this language.

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

Madam Speaker, I totally disagree with my colleague's premise. The people we hear from over and over again and come to us for compassionate intervention are the very people feeling threatened by this particular legislation. I know that many who are disabled face very hard challenges, but many of them as well are very capable in many other ways, as I can assure you Taylor Hyatt is.

My concern is that assisted suicide or assisted dying is being encouraged. I am concerned as well for veterans who are told over and over again not to go that direction and yet we are facing a situation where we are not keeping those safeguards that would ensure that the people asking to be protected have the right to be protected in the midst of this legislation.

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Provencher. He will have only two minutes before we go into Private Members' Business. He will be able to proceed afterward.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, John Diefenbaker once said that freedom is the right to be wrong, but not the right to do wrong.

As we review Bill C-7, the proposed expansion of the medical assistance in dying regime, we must strive to uphold that value: the value of dignity and worth of all people. Canadians value our right to think freely, to consider our thoughts and opinions and to change our minds if we so choose. As a free society, we want to make room for all people to feel valued as contributing members of society.

Dr. Leonie Herx, past president of the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians and chair of a division of palliative medicine at Queen's University, sees life stories every day that show people can change their mind 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 would not be 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 legislation. She talked about the fact that the removal of these safeguards was not required by the Truchon decision, the ruling that the Liberals chose not to appeal, by the way. Instead, the Liberals introduced Bill C-7 to expand MAID to abandon the critical safeguards that Parliament passed into law just a few years ago.

I noted the member's comments with great interest, given that she was the justice minister who had brought forward the original bill to legalize MAID in Canada. In response to her questions and critiques, the current justice minister replied that the 10-day waiting period only increased suffering, and that he—

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

I am sorry, to the hon. member for Provencher, but I do have to interrupt. The hon. member will have eight minutes left in his time after we resume debate.

It being 6:10, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, to bring folks up to speed as to where I left off, I was talking about the 10-day reflection period that would be removed from the medical assistant in dying legislation and how the current justice minister said that the 10-day waiting period added to the pain and suffering of people.

We know that is false. Modern medicine gives us the tools to alleviate pain and suffering, if only governments had the courage to make them widely available. It simply is not right or fair that people who are suffering may not have access to good palliative care, home care or to the medications they need to reduce their pain, suffering and anxiety. Ensuring all Canadians have access to care needs should be our top priority to address the needs of suffering Canadians. Death cannot and should not ever be the only choice to end excessive suffering.

Suffering Canadians must also be free to exercise a change of heart if they choose. The elimination of the reflection period and the removal of the requirement to reconfirm consent take away this option. It takes away the option to reconfirm consent. It takes away the option to give comfort in making that decision.

How are we preserving the right for people to change their minds when we waive the waiting period? It would seem the bill would make MAID not only final, but unwavering and resolute, because it would remove the waiting period and the need to reconfirm a person's consent.

The First Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada, 2019, published in July of this last year, relates that in 2019, 3.6% of the patients who made written requests for MAID subsequently withdrew those requests. That may seem like an insignificant number, but the number of deaths put in context works out to 263 deaths that were avoided because people changed their mind. Of the 7,336 who applied for medical assistance in dying, 263 people changed their mind, 3.6%.

We shut down economies for death rates of 0.2%. We now have what would be a wrongful death rate of 3.6% that could be averted and we turn a blind eye to it. Every single one of them deserved the freedom to make that choice. What if, on an annual basis, 263 people would reverse that decision based on having that 10-day waiting period? Now that 10-day waiting period is being removed.

Another primary concern I have is with respect to a glaring omission in the bill, which is the issue of conscience rights protections for medical professionals and health care workers as well as the rights of workers in hospices and other institutions not wanting to cause the death of people in their care.

As an editorial in Maclean's explains:

Many doctors are willing to expedite the natural process of dying, given their traditional role to relieve suffering. There is, however, a qualitative and ethical distinction between hastening a death which is already drawing near, and ending a life which 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. Herx replied, yes, that she knew of doctors who had taken early retirement for reasons of professional integrity or for their own moral compass.

Let us make no mistake. These are real lives, real people, real consciences being impacted by the decisions the House is making this week. Do we want to harden the hearts of those who, by their world view, cannot comply, those who by responding to MAID feel it is a betrayal of their professional commitment to save lives, a betrayal of their faith or their conscience?

Likewise, other professionals have concerns, for example, pastoral care and workers who attend to people who are suffering on a regular basis. They know they are not dealing with many of the root causes of pain, loneliness, fear, distress and despair.

With the revelation of the horrific conditions for our elderly, as described by the Canadian Armed Forces just recently when providing assistance to some personal care homes during this COVID crisis, the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops asked how “in good conscience” could the criteria for MAID be expanded when we were not even responding to their basic human care?

The bill, if passed, has some very real life and death concerns. According to the Council of Canadian Academies, without its reasonably foreseeable natural death provision, which is being removed, Canada will become more permissive with respect to MAID than any other jurisdiction in the world.

Two other voices, Lemmens and Krakowitz Broker, explain that unlike any other country in the world, the new bill fails to explicitly require that all reasonable options be available and tried first before allowing physicians to end a patient's life.

Ensuring consent is so vital in avoiding any sense of coercive implication, subtle or otherwise, for the dignity of all lives. People just may change their minds. The Council of Canadian Academies advised that a major reason why people change their minds about MAID is the disability paradox, which is understood as healthy people imagining a future health condition and ending up discovering it has much more quality than anticipated. In other words, people may tend to overestimate the intolerability of a future health scenario.

An alarming suggestion made by the report is that people may have written their request under duress or coercion, fearing that a lack of social and health support created a bias to their future quality of life.

Expert opinions, speaking to the Senate committee on Bill C-7, discussed how, in the proposed bill, MAID would include treatable diseases where death was not imminent, which is where the bill adds a 90-day assessment period. However, it is no wonder that people with disabilities or chronic illnesses are feeling threatened by the 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 of life after a diagnosis like that.

It is no wonder that former member of Parliament Jane Philpott and the current member for Vancouver Granville wrote an editorial for Maclean's, urging parliamentarians to proceed with caution, questioning whether there was enough medical and social evidence to even understand the implications of the potential changes being presented in the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his words of wisdom. It was wonderful.

In my life, previous to becoming elected, I had the privilege and opportunity to work in an interdisciplinary team in a hospital setting as a social worker. A lot of times I got to go into end-of-life situations, palliative and more. It was a real honour to work with a family in a palliative situation. A lot of family therapy happens in that moment, which is for the good, and a lot of reconciliation.

The statistic right now is that only 30% of Canadians have access to quality palliative care. For sure, it is not people who live in rural and remote northern communities.

Would my hon. colleague agree that it is absolutely appalling that only 30% of Canadians have access to palliative care?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, happens to share my last name.

It is absolutely horrible that in our country only 30% of people who require palliative care have access to it. In my riding of Provencher, we have many good personal care homes and there is always a need to increase beds. We are seeing some expansion in one of my larger communities right now.

Statistics tell us that when people have access to good, quality care, their demeanour, their perspective on life changes and it could prevent them from making a hasty decision. Now, if they make a hasty decision on MAID, it would be terminal for them, because no reflection period would be required anymore.

Access to medical palliative care is very critical.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I put forward some amendments to the bill during the committee process. One of them was calling to ensure that people were not in a state of decline because of deprivation, social disadvantage, lack of support or perceived discrimination. There are things we can do to help people while they are alive. Some of those we have called for are a guaranteed livable income to ensure people have a good quality of life and universal pharmacare to ensure people have access to their medicines. We know that when people do not have access to medicine, their health declines.

The Conservatives do not support these things. They do not support taxing the billionaire class. That is about economic Darwinism, everybody for themselves, letting people be deprived of their medicine, letting people live on the streets and live in poverty.

Why does the member not want to take care of people? That is what I would like to know. Why does the member not support a guaranteed livable income and universal pharmacare, so we can take care of people while they are living?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. We want to take care of people. The previous member asked what I thought about palliative care. The lack of palliative in our country is horrible. If people have access to palliative care in the time when they need it, I think it will reduce a lot of the need for people wanting to access MAID. Palliative care is something on which we should be focused. The government indicated that it would have a plan, but it does not have a plan and it has not even begun one.

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

Madam Speaker, I know this is something my hon. colleague cares about deeply. Has he seen the testimony of Mr. Foley at committee?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, no, I was not at committee when Mr. Foley gave testimony. Therefore, I was not able to see it.

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

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak to this particular legislation before it went to committee for proposed amendments, or the hopeful change of amendments. At that time, I raised some very serious concerns that I had about the changes proposed, through the legislation, to the parameters around medical assistance in dying. I shared my concerns that with the removal of existing safeguards, this legislation was eroding protections for vulnerable persons.

Countless medical professionals and advocates for persons with disabilities have come forward to express their great concern with this legislation, but it seems that the government is more concerned with rushing to pass this legislation than with listening to the serious and valid concerns they have. These doctors have lived experience with vulnerable populations, and a deep understanding of not only the demand for medical assistance in dying, but also of broader medical needs. It is reprehensible that their voices are being ignored. We have to ensure that personal autonomy does not supersede the protection of vulnerable persons. When the consequences of getting this wrong are life-ending, we really cannot afford to get this wrong.

We know that Conservatives put forward a number of reasonable amendments to reinstate protections that the Liberal government would remove through this legislation. These amendments were sought in good faith to better protect vulnerable persons, such as reinstating the 10-day reflection period when death was reasonably foreseeable, maintaining the requirement for two independent witnesses or even requiring that patients be the ones to first request information on medical assistance in dying. I am beyond disappointed that these proposed amendments were rejected.

We have heard the testimonies and read the stories that persons with disabilities and elderly Canadians are being offered medical assistance in dying without requesting the service. In those moments, the underlying message being communicated to them is that their lives are “less than”, and that is just not okay. It is not okay for us to create the legislative framework that perpetuates ageism and ableism. Every life has value and every life is worthy of protection.

If members opposite do not believe Conservatives, disability advocates or medical professionals that this is happening, maybe they will listen to the words of their colleague, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion. In speaking to Senate members about the personal experience of Roger Foley, a person with a disability who was offered, unsolicited, medically assisted death, the minister 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. 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 MAID. 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.

I agree with the minister. This has to stop. Every life is valuable, disability or not.

The rejected Conservative amendment to require patients to be the ones to first request information on medical assistance in dying could help that, but the legislative changes proposed in this bill, to make same-day medically assisted death available and to remove the requirement for the second witness, certainly would not make it stop. A person with a disability who may already feel disempowered would not be empowered by these proposed changes.

In the previous Parliament, I sat on the HUMA committee during the study of the accessibility act, Bill C-81. The guiding principle of that particular piece of legislation was to ensure the full and equal participation in society for persons with disabilities. I have to wonder how we can ensure their full participation in society while eroding these protections in the medical assistance in dying framework.

Why are we not listening to the disability advocates who are sounding the alarm? These advocates are telling us that the removal of existing safeguards in medical assistance in death has the potential to devalue the lives of vulnerable persons.

The other significant piece of this conversation is that we cannot truly assert that we are giving Canadians personal autonomy if there is no real choice. If palliative care and medical care needs are not available to a person, but medically assisted death is readily available, there is a problem.

The legislation passed in the previous Parliament required that an in-depth, five-year parliamentary review of the original medical assistance in dying legislation occur, and that the review also consider the state of palliative care in Canada. This government is recklessly pushing through this legislation before that work is done.

The reality is that we already know there is inadequate access to palliative care in Canada. There have been countless studies, and we hear it from medical professionals. We hear it from those who are seeking palliative care and from their advocates. Certainly, this legislation would be better informed if that in-depth parliamentary review had already occurred, and that would be the appropriate order of consideration.

As we navigate COVID-19, we certainly cannot ignore how the quality of care and physical restrictions might impact vulnerable persons. The story of Nancy Russell, who sought medically assisted death rather than face another lockdown in her care home, is heartbreaking. We can certainly imagine that Nancy was not alone in those feelings of loneliness and hopelessness.

First, this story emphasized to me the need for better supports in our care homes. COVID-19 has exposed the acute challenges in long-term care in Canada. These challenges have only been compounded by the pandemic. This government has a responsibility to ensure that there is adequate access to masks and rapid testing, so that our seniors are not forced into endless isolation to the point that ending their lives feels preferable.

Second, this story reinforced my strong belief that we have to be cautious that we are not promoting MAID to those who are experiencing moments of hopelessness. We have to ensure that we are delivering better and adequate supports and services to all Canadians. We need to ensure that there is adequate access to palliative care and home care needs. We have to make efforts to ensure dignity in living, not only dignity in dying. Without ensuring this, we are in fact eroding personal autonomy, and then choice is skewed. In effect, without true personal autonomy in the decision, there is no dignity in dying either.

I implore my colleagues in the House to pay attention to the alarms that have been sounded by so many Canadians, including countless medical health professionals and disability advocates. I ask them to seriously consider the impact of removing vital safeguards for medical assistance in dying, to consider making efforts to address systemic ageism and ableism and not reinforce it, and to not endanger the lives of vulnerable persons by allowing respect for individual autonomy to outweigh the protection of vulnerable persons.

In my view, the proposed legislation does not find that balance. We must do better to protect vulnerable persons, in fact, on all issues, but even more so on issues of life or death.

We owe it to Canadians to properly consult, review and consider legislation. They deserve that from us.

[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 have, on many occasions, talked about the importance and significance of all lives being equal. In the many ways that this legislation has come before us, more than just the governing party is supporting it. New Democrats, Bloc members and Green members are supporting the legislation.

In the debate, one of the issues that keeps coming up is personal care at home, and the need to see it enhanced and supported. It is interesting to hear Conservative members say that. They seem to advocate giving cash toward health transfers as opposed to trying to ensure there are standards for home care services. I wonder if the member can help me reconcile why the Conservatives seem to be at odds with that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find that question quite funny because I believe all lives are valuable. I have been in situations where a patient has come into the hospital and had nobody. They die and the social worker plans their funeral. They have nobody. They have no friends. They have no family. They have no advocates.

What I am concerned about with this legislation is that we have vulnerable people, whether they are homeless, drug addicts, alcoholics or anything else. If they go into a hospital or a long-term care facility, and it is suggested that they can end their lives right then, if they are told that MAID can be administered with no safeguards and it can be done right then, I have a problem with that. It does not go with what the member across the aisle said about all lives being equal, because that is not true. All lives are valuable.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be up to ask a question on this bill again. I spoke during the previous stage of debate on this bill about how, because we are dealing with life-and-death situations, we need to take into consideration all aspects of this bill and all sides of the debate.

I talked about my mother's situation, where her dementia had progressed to the point where she could not use a telephone anymore to phone family members. The day after Christmas, the last Christmas before she passed away, she developed the flu. The next day, when she had recovered from that flu, we were invited to go to see her at the care home and she talked to us like the dementia had reverted to two years prior. She picked up the phone and phoned my five siblings that day, from the numbers that were in her head.

I have to question why the 10-day reflection period has been removed from this, because at that time I had a representation agreement to make medical decisions for my mother. Medical assistance in dying was not an option at that time, so we did not even think about it.

However, I put this situation to others who might be placed in that situation now. Her dementia turned around, basically overnight. Are there cures out there that we may find next week or next year that would reverse some of these situations? I would like to ask the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster how she sees that the protection needs to be in this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for being vulnerable. It is sometimes very hard to share those stories that can trigger our emotions, so I thank him for that.

If palliative care is only available to 30% of Canadians, a number that I would argue is even lower in rural, remote and northern communities, that is a problem. When palliative care is happening, sometimes it can take months. My mother was in palliative care for not just a day, but for a few months. However, during that time, even though it is such a very hard time, there is reconciliation. There is the opportunity for broken families and people who have had disagreements and hurt and anger and broken hearts to heal.

I believe that if we do not offer palliative care to people, we are actually robbing families of reconciliation and being whole. Therefore, I really want to encourage the government. There is an importance in palliative care, and we will have better families if we are able to offer this particular service.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the evenings there are fewer people around here, so it is always a challenge to keep an audience, but I appreciate that you are in the chair for sure. I know that you always listen to my speeches with rapt attention.

I know that the member for Winnipeg North, without a doubt, is here listening with rapt attention as well. We are sometimes concerned that he never leaves that chair or that he sleeps there. He is usually in that chair before I appear here, and he is usually here after I leave. There are rumours that he may actually live here. I do not mean any disrespect, as I appreciate his interventions. I can recognize his voice from a mile away.

Today we are at report stage for Bill C-7. The report stage is reporting to the House on what was discussed at committee. The committee heard some very compelling testimony from witnesses. Most impactful to me was the testimony from a Mr. Foley.

Mr. Foley gave testimony via Zoom to the committee and he was in a hospital bed. He has a degenerative disease that has made him immobile, and he needs full-time care. It was suggested to him several times that perhaps he should pursue MAID. The bed he is in is a very expensive spot to be taking up, and they are not able to move him out of the hospital into a long-term care bed, so it has been suggested to him that MAID is a viable treatment option for him.

It was shocking to listen to him from his hospital bed tell us that. If colleagues have not had a chance to see his testimony, I recommend they have a look at it. The fact that this is being brought up by medical professionals as if it is another treatment is very concerning to me. Assisted suicide is not a treatment. Assisted suicide is eliminating the patient, not the symptoms and not the pain. It is eliminating the patient.

That was very much the concern that everybody had when assisted suicide was introduced back in 2016-17. I remember that was one of the first pieces of legislation I had to deal with my career here. It was a traumatic bill at that time because I really felt that this was a complete shift away from one of the traditions of western civilization, the Hippocratic oath, which is nearly 2,000 years old. I also feel that it is the government's job to defend life.

At that time I said that this is a slippery slope. Who gets to decide who gets to live and who gets to die? I was assured that that was, indeed, not the case, and that this was where they were going to hold the line. I remember specifically the former justice minister and the former health minister assuring us that they had gotten the balance right. I take them at their word. I do believe they firmly believe they had gotten the balance right.

I do not impugn any of their motives, but both of those individuals are no longer in those positions, and here we are, four short years later, with a gentleman in his hospital bed saying that he is being offered assisted suicide, euthanasia, as if it were just another treatment option. We have treatment option A, treatment option B, and assisted suicide or euthanasia, as if someone should pick one. One is relatively inexpensive and it will free up the bed. The other options will take us a little longer.

Mr. Foley said that he does not want to die. He does not. He still enjoys life even though he is incapacitated to a large extent, so the testimony of Mr. Foley was very telling for me.

The Senate has begun its study and has heard from disability advocates, over 85 witnesses to this point, and none of them has been supportive of the bill. The disability community is very concerned, as the testimony of Mr. Foley really points out. They are very concerned about the pressure that is placed on folks with a disability to pursue MAID, euthanasia or assisted suicide.

One of the most interesting witnesses at committee was the minister for folks with disabilities. At committee, when concerns were raised, she agreed that those were concerns she shared, and that they were also the concerns she had heard from stakeholder groups, which she is closely tied to because this is her portfolio. The voice of the minister responsible for folks with disabilities in Canada had not been heard at the cabinet table or when the bill was drafted.

What is most frustrating about this is that we have seen opportunities for the Liberal government to listen to Canadians on this in several instances. The bill was introduced at the beginning of the Parliament. Then there was the WE scandal, so to get out of that, the government brought in prorogation and the bill was reintroduced after prorogation. The government had heard many of the concerns about the bill prior to prorogation, so it had the opportunity to fix some of the issues it had heard prior to prorogation. It could have reintroduced the bill with some of those fixes, but it never did. It chose not to do that.

Then at committee, I think there were 16 amendments, but the government ignored the amendments that the disability community was seeking. Liberals ignored the amendment to prevent same-day death. Many in the disabilities community said our worst day should not be our last day.

When people are at their worst and say they do not want to do this anymore, that should not be their last day. They should be able to reconsider. This is literally life or death. There is no coming back from this. Many of them brought in amendments to say a 10-day waiting period is acceptable and even a seven-day waiting period would be acceptable.

I heard from a fellow living with a disability who said it takes him longer to get a wheelchair than it would to get assisted suicide. That is one of the major concerns we have. If other treatments are not readily available, then we will see folks being pushed into making a choice that is not really a choice, which is to choose between assisted suicide or going on without treatment for days and days. There were a number of amendments to eliminate the same-day death.

There was also an amendment that was probably the best one in terms of dealing with Mr. Foley's concerns that this is not treatment. It is not a treatment option, and it should be something that is always brought up by the individual. I moved several amendments at committee to Bill C-14 in the previous Parliament around this not being health care. I thought it should definitely be taken out of health care system because I did not want to see euthanasia and assisted suicide being treated as a treatment option.

There was a great amendment to Bill C-7 brought to committee that would have ensured that health care professionals would never be allowed to be the one to instigate the conversation on MAID or assisted suicide. The Liberals also ignored that amendment. The disabilities community is very concerned about the bill. The Liberals have refused to listen to them, and I hope to see the bill get amendments from the Senate.

[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, for many years, since 2015, we have had a great deal of debate, literally hundreds of hours of debates, committee meetings and all forms of presentations and so forth. This is true even most recently, with regard to the amendments the member opposite made reference to.

The Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party are all saying that this would appear to be the best going forward, so it would appear that a solid majority support the legislation. I am wondering if my friend could provide his thoughts on what appears to be a consensus for the legislation to move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know who said it, but I remember a quote from somewhere that says, “I'd rather be right than be president.” To some degree, that is kind of the case here as well. I am not that concerned about how many political parties the member can line up and say agree with the Liberals.

The truth and what is right do not necessarily depend on what the majority is. We should come to this place, debate these issues and hear out the testimony of these individuals. We do have a vote in this place, but it does not necessarily make it the best decision. We have heard 85 witnesses at committee, and all of them in the Senate have been opposed to this bill.

Just because one side of the political spectrum happens to not agree with those witnesses does not mean their testimony is invalid. The Liberals should bring this bill back to—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We will go to the next question.

Continuing with questions and comments, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been working with the Diversability community here in Nanaimo—Ladysmith for a number of years. I did consultations with its members about this legislation as well, and what I hear often is that they live with a form of legislated poverty. They are deprived of a lot of things other Canadians enjoy.

To have a fair country, what we need to be doing is taxing some of these billionaires who have reaped huge benefits during the pandemic, the 20 billionaires and their $28 billion in additional profits, to even out the playing field and take care of those who are most vulnerable in our communities.

I am wondering whether the hon. member would stand with me and ask that we tax the billionaires and spread out some of that wealth so people can live with dignity in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, at committee, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith moved an amendment I was very excited we could support. I believe he worked with Inclusion Canada, and he might correct me, and they had brought forward that amendment. I do hope we can continue to work together to get an amendment like that passed in this bill.

When the Liberals say everybody is supportive of this bill, it is not necessarily true in this place. Other political parties, such as the Greens, put forward amendments that were very easy for us to support. They should have been very easy for the Liberals to support as they have wide support across the Canadian population.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Peace River—Westlock spoke about the options being provided by health care workers. I relate that to the story of a friend at home who had minor surgery, and because she was in such pain, the doctor basically opened up the cupboard and asked her what she would like. This ties into the opioid crisis. Sometimes the individual practitioner may not be looking at all the options out there. They may be looking at only the easiest options, and I hope that does not become the case here.

When we debated this bill in the earlier stages, it was to go to committee for possible amendments, and those amendments would determine what would happen when it came back here. I heard from constituents right across the North Okanagan—Shuswap on both sides of this debate, and I tried to put some of those issues forward in my earlier speech.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock if he feels the debate on both sides of this bill have been considered in the amendments that were either—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We are out of time. We will have a short response, please, from the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remember the member's first speech on the bill, an impassioned speech he gave about his mother who suffered from Alzheimer's. A small miracle happened, in that he got his mother back for a few hours or days, I don't quite remember, but it was a miracle nonetheless. Those are the things that I hope that most Canadians get to experience.

In this debate around Bill C-7, there is unanimity in the disability community that there are not two sides to the debate. There is unanimity in the disability community that this is a bad bill. We should send it back and get it fixed.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak about this bill at report stage. I want to take this time to share my personal experience about losing my parents and express my concerns with the bill as it currently stands.

My father passed away of a heart attack 19 years ago. This was incredibly difficult to deal with. He was there one minute, had a massive heart attack and was gone the next. While this was truly devastating, and one of the most difficult points in my life, fortunately there was no difficult decision to make, and his death was not prolonged or painful.

Six years later, my mother passed away. This was not so simple and, unfortunately, long and drawn out. My mother was diagnosed with stage four non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and 14 years ago, at the time she was diagnosed, treatment options were not as advanced as they are today. My mother's stage-four cancer diagnosis looked grim. She tried radiation and chemotherapy. Both were ineffective, as the cancer was too far gone.

We were told by doctors that stem cell treatment would be her best course of action, as the treatment proved to be 70% effective for those who completed the treatment. In my mother's case, drugs were extremely effective on her body, and after two treatments the drugs caused her to have stroke-like symptoms. Because of the effects of the drugs on her body, she was immediately withdrawn from the stem cell treatment.

After withdrawing from the treatment, my mother's condition continued to decline. Over the next few months, she would receive a blood transfusion every three weeks that gave her a bit more energy and temporarily made her feel a bit better, but we all knew this was only a band-aid solution. There came a point when my mother did not want to continue to prolong her inevitable passing. She took time to reflect and decided to stop accepting transfusions altogether.

Quickly we saw how sick she truly was, not having received her transfusions. Not long after, my mother had passed. While 13 years ago, medically assisted dying was non-existent in Canada, even if it had been, my mother would not have chosen this option, even though she said she was sick of being sick and that was the reason she stopped accepting transfusions, as she was preparing to accept the inevitable. Although she was dying, she never experienced any pain, so she had a relatively comfortable passing. Given my personal experience with losing my parents, I sympathize with people who are in this position or have loved ones in this position.

The legislation we are discussing today is problematic. Choosing medical assistance in dying is a choice that should not be thought out over weeks, months or even years, in some cases. No one should be able to make a rash decision and seek out medical assistance in dying without a wait period. Conservatives are suggesting simple amendments to the legislation to fix the many problems it has and the ethical dilemmas that may arise out of it.

Because of my personal experience, I absolutely believe Canadians who are facing situations where their death is foreseeable should have access to medical assistance in dying. However, with legislation that allows that, there must be safeguards for vulnerable sectors of the population, as well as our health care professionals, both of which Bill C-7 fails to adequately address. Since the bill was first introduced, I have heard from my constituents both for and against the legislation. Interestingly enough, of all the constituents I have heard from on this issue, no one has said to me they want the bill to be passed in its current state. Those who are for the legislation want to see it passed, but not without amendments.

I agree with them and I cannot support the bill in its current form, so let me share with the House the main points I am hearing from constituents who would like the legislation amended.

First is protecting conscience rights of health care professionals. If a doctor fundamentally disagrees with providing assisted dying, it should be acceptable for them to decline the procedure without providing a referral. If a doctor sees medically assisted dying as ethically improper, as doctors take the oath to “do no harm”, when providing a referral to a doctor who will do the procedure, the initial doctor still plays a role in the practice and we must protect their conscience rights.

Second is requiring the patient to be the one to request the information on medically assisted dying. Should someone else request information on medically assisted dying on a patient's behalf, they could feel unwanted pressure, especially if the patient has a mental disability. By not having a safeguard in the legislation, vulnerable sectors of the population are being put at risk.

Third is providing a clearer definition of foreseeable death. In its current form, the legislation fails to clearly define a foreseeable death. Could old age be seen as a foreseeable cause of death? Is that an acceptable reason for a request for medical assistance in dying? What about a disease that will likely take 10 years before someone passes?

Finally, and most importantly, is reinstating the 10-day reflection period. A person who lives to the age of 75, the average age of people who use medical assistance in dying, will have lived about 27,500 days. A 10-day reflection period to ensure they are ready to go is not just recommended, but it is essential.

I would like to bring up another personal point. When my grandfather reached 80 years of age, he stated many times what a good, healthy life he had and that at this time he was more than ready to accept his passing. It took another 16 years before my grandfather passed away. In that time, when he was 91, his hip broke and because of his advanced age we thought for sure that this would be the end. It was not. He was 96 when his other hip broke and that led to his passing.

Even though he had a very long and relatively healthy life, in his final years, his body was slowly deteriorating. He had macular degeneration and was legally blind. In his advanced years, he was essentially deaf. Even though he was physically able to manoeuvre on his own abilities, he said many times that being blind and deaf makes for a very long day. In this situation, would this be grounds for him to choose medically assisted dying simply because of his old age?

In reading this bill, several questions come to mind that I believe the government has not addressed in the legislation.

Can one consent in advance to be euthanized once one reaches a state one fears but which one has never experienced, like living with advanced dementia?

Once a person has signed an advance request and has lost capacity to consent to medical treatment, at what point would that person be euthanized?

Even if a person has signed an advance request and lost capacity, should a physician, before euthanizing the patient, try to determine whether the patient is currently suffering intolerably and desires to die? In its current form, Bill C-7 has no such requirement.

If a non-capable person seems to resist a lethal injection, can the physician, nevertheless, proceed with the injection if the physician believes that the resistance is not due to any understanding on the patient's part that the injection will kill them? In its current form, Bill C-7 says that apparent resistance means a doctor must not proceed, but clarifies that involuntary response to contact is not resistance.

That raises another question. How does a doctor determine if the response to contact is involuntary?

With all this being said, in its current form, I cannot support the legislation. I certainly hope, for the sake of all Canadians who may wish to consider medical assistance in dying, the government accepts the Conservative Party's amendments to the legislation. I look forward to questions.

[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 have more of a comment. Over the last number of years since 2015, shortly after getting into government, we have had a great deal of debate, whether inside the chamber, in committee, in the Senate or with our constituents, related to just how important this issue is.

There have been many different types of amendments brought forward. Some have been accepted and others, obviously, have been rejected. We have to be careful not to underestimate the valuable contributions that all participants, including the medical and science professionals, who have allowed us to bring the legislation to the point we are at today.

I always indicate that all lives are equal and I will continue to advocate for that. We need to recognize that, at times, we will have to agree to disagree. I wanted to express that I appreciate the comments by the Conservative Party. Having said that, I believe the legislation we have is a step forward in the right direction.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is probably a little easier to address the comments of the member for Winnipeg North than to answer questions, to be honest.

The member is right. This is a very serious situation where we have no recourse. It is not that people can come back three days later when they have found out they did not like dying so much. That is the problem with this. We have to make sure that the rights of people are protected properly, and that is really my concern. I do not have a problem when people wish to have medically assisted dying because that is their right. We should not make that choice for them, but there needs to be proper safeguards for our vulnerable population. That is what I would like to see amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes the point well that we have different points of view, even within our own party, about some of the fundamental questions involved. To coin a phrase, sometimes diversity is a source of strength. The fact is that we have different points of view, but what we are united as a Conservative caucus on is that there need to be protections for vulnerable people.

The 10-day reflection period can already be waived in certain circumstances. The government says it is too much to have a reflection period of 10 days when people wait so much longer to get access to basic treatment. These are reasonable amendments and it is just so striking that the government does not listen. It does not listen to the physicians, the patients, the disability folks or other parliamentarians who have raised these concerns.

I am curious what the member's response is to how we put forward these reasonable proposals and the government consistently refuses to listen to these concerns.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit it is quite baffling, but Liberals are probably taking the path of least resistance. It is so much easier just to wipe away any conditions, because then conditions do not have to be regulated and terms do not have to be put forward. All one has to say is yes, it is allowed, and be done with it.

The member is right. I have to agree that there should be safeguards put in place. Even when people buy vehicles or appliances, there is always buyer's remorse to some degree and there is a waiting period. Why would we not have some type of waiting period when dealing with someone's life? I fully agree with the member's comments.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are the only country with universal health care that does not have universal pharmacare. There are people in this country who cannot afford their medicine. When they cannot take their medicine, their health declines, and when their health declines, they end up on a downward spiral. We end up with people who end up in situations where death becomes foreseeable.

Why do the Conservatives not support a universal pharmacare program to make sure we take care of people while they are alive and they get the things they need to live a good life and be healthy?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that with most couples, partners of various kinds, one or both of them have a medical plan already in place. The statistic is that around 96% of most Canadians have a health care plan, whether it is a plan at work or a seniors program through the province. Yes, a few people fall through the cracks, so why would we not address the small population that does not have the benefit of a medical plan of some kind instead of a universal plan right across the country, which is going to cost billions instead of a few millions.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak this evening, virtually, from my home province of New Brunswick, to what is a very important issue for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Four days is how long the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights took to study Bill C-7. I have listened with great interest to my colleagues on all sides of the House as we debate this important issue, and it has become abundantly clear that the amount of time the government allocated for the study of this legislation was woefully inadequate. That became abundantly clear to me as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where we heard witness after witness, in testimony after testimony, talk about the negative impacts that this legislation will have on Canadians, particularly Canadians with disabilities.

I go into this debate with an open mind. I know that all 338 members of the House of Commons come from different political parties, different backgrounds and different perspectives, but I would hope that most of us are united in our resolve to protect those who are vulnerable and help those who are less fortunate than some of the rest of us. Some of those people appeared before our committee. We had persons with disabilities and other persons who are vulnerable, and under Bill C-7, they would be, for the first time ever, eligible for assisted death in our country.

Bill C-7 is not a moderate change from the existing law. Five years ago, Bill C-14 was passed into law under a majority Liberal government, and it provided for assisted dying. One of the features in that bill, and there was a number of them, were the safeguards that were put in place. One of those safeguards was that a person's death had to be reasonably foreseeable in order for them to be eligible for assisted dying. In other words, the person had to be dying to be eligible for assisted dying.

There were other safeguards in place too, including a 10-day reflection period. We throw around terms like “life-or-death question” or “life-or-death situation”, but assisted dying truly is life or death, and the 10-day reflection period gave someone an opportunity to change their mind.

As members know, with the Truchon decision in Quebec, the Superior Court decided that a safeguard for the reasonable foreseeability of death was not constitutional. It is my position and the position of the Conservative Party, as well as that of many Canadians, that this decision should have been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, for certainty. One of the key things the Attorney General does on behalf of a government, which is one of the key things a government does, is defend government legislation. This is brand new legislation on a brand new idea in Canada. However, the Liberal government, even at the first instance, did not defend its own legislation and its own safeguards, and did not appeal the decision.

We have heard from so many different groups, such as palliative care doctors and persons with disabilities, and they spoke of the need to appeal the decision. We heard at committee how important it would have been to do so. However, rather than appeal the decision, the government brought in Bill C-7, which not only responded to the Quebec court decision but went further in stripping away a number of safeguards that existed in the previous legislation.

At committee, the Conservative Party moved 10 amendments that were based on the feedback we heard from persons with disabilities, palliative care doctors and other specialists. They would have put back in place some of the safeguards that had been stripped away. However, one by one, amendment after amendment, these very modest proposals were defeated by the Liberal government.

I want to mention a few of those proposals.

One was to maintain the 10-day reflection period to give individuals who may change their mind about assisted dying the opportunity to do so.

Another was the requirement that two independent witnesses, neither of whom are paid, be there throughout the process of assisted dying. We sometimes have two witnesses for wills. Surely, to ensure ultimate safeguards we should have two independent witnesses for MAID.

Another was ensuring the physician who is dealing with the individual has an expertise in whatever ailment the patient is facing. That is not a requirement in this legislation.

We heard powerful testimony from Roger Foley. Members may have heard of his case. He recorded conversations he had with individuals within the hospital who were trying to encourage him to consider MAID, assisted death. I think he is someone who has so much to give, even in his state as a person living with a disability. Roger Foley appeared before the justice committee, and he did that not for himself, but to help other Canadians living with disabilities so they would not be faced with the same thing he was faced with: individuals advising him that he is eligible for assisted dying.

I have heard a number of members tonight talk about the equality of Canadians. We heard from different groups representing persons with disabilities, and they see this as an equality issue. They say there is no equality under this law because they are being singled out. They are asking why they are being singled out.

Dr. Catherine Frazee, a person with disabilities and a professor at the school of disability studies at Ryerson University, said:

Bill C-7 begs the question, why us? Why only us? Why only people whose bodies are altered or painful or in decline? Why not everyone who lives outside the margins of a decent life, everyone who resorts to an overdose, a high bridge, or a shotgun carried out into the woods? Why not everyone who decides that their quality of life is in the ditch?

As I mentioned, we heard from Roger Foley, who said:

What is happening to vulnerable persons in Canada is so wrong. Assisted dying is easier to access than safe and appropriate disability supports to live. Committee members, you cannot let this happen to me and others. You have turned your backs on the disabled and elderly Canadians. You or your family and friends will all be in my shoes one day. You cannot let this sliding regime continue.

As Conservatives, we have listened throughout this process. That's why we said the government should have appealed the decision.

As members know, there was a five-year mandatory review under Bill C-14 of the assisted dying regime in Canada. We know that was to start this summer, but the government did not even get the benefit of the mandatory parliamentary review before it brought in sweeping changes that fundamentally alter the assisted dying regime in Canada and alter it against the wishes of persons with disabilities, palliative care doctors and people who are caring for people at the end of their life.

We need to get this right. I would have loved to see an openness from the government to adopt some of our amendments, such as the one Roger Foley asked for, which would have specifically prohibited doctors from bringing up MAID to patients and required that it went the other way around so that the patient would have to bring it up.

For those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable, who would be eligible for MAID under Bill C-7, we could have extended the reflection period to 120 days. This is based on testimony we heard. It would give time for treatments to take effect and for people to come to terms with their situation.

This is an important bill. It is one that we should have taken more time with. I know the Senate will be looking at it, but I urge all parliamentarians to think of persons living with disabilities who are saying no to the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent work on this file as the shadow minister for justice for our caucus and also as vice-chair of the justice committee.

I am not a regular member of the committee, but I have had the opportunity to listen to some of the incredibly moving testimony, and it is hard for me to understand how someone could sit through and listen to that testimony and still vote against these amendments. We heard from physicians. We heard from people with disabilities. We heard from organizations. There was unanimity among those from the disabled committee who testified before the committee. They said they have a very different experience with the health care system in the context of medical assistance in dying. It is being offered and even pushed on them. We heard from many witnesses who raised that concern.

It is hard for me to understand how members of the government caucus could sit through those hearings, listening to those concerns and to reasonable calls for amendments, and then vote down 100% of the amendments that people with disabilities were saying would address their concerns. However, it explains why the government was so keen to shut down those hearings prematurely.

I would appreciate hearing more from my colleague about his response to that compelling testimony.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his time spent on the justice committee during the limited time we spent debating the bill and dealing with witnesses.

He is absolutely right. I also thought, in hearing witness after witness, the disability community was unanimous. Groups representing people with disabilities are unanimously against this legislation. Krista Carr, who is the executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada, said that the bill represents the disability community's greatest fear.

I do not understand why our very modest amendments were rejected. They would have protected persons with disabilities from being offered death and helped them deal with their disabilities. I certainly hope that in the future we take greater care with these types of issues related to people with disabilities.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Fundy Royal for supporting the amendments that I brought forward in committee. The justice committee is not in my portfolio, although one of my portfolios is disability.

It is important to hear from those in the diverse ability community. They have a saying: “Nothing about us without us”. They appreciate being heard, so I had some of my own meetings with Inclusion BC and with members of the diverse ability community in B.C.

One thing we know is that poverty is a social determinant of health, and there are too many people living in poverty in this country. We are a wealthy country, so there is no reason why we have people living in poverty.

We put forward the idea of a guaranteed livable income, so I would like to ask the hon. member what kind of programs he would put forward to eliminate poverty in this country. We need to take care of people.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his great work at the committee. I believe one of his amendments, which we supported, would have helped in some way to improve the bill.

The hon. member is right. In assisted dying, it is not a true choice if someone has not had a consultation about their living situation, their social situation and palliative care. The bill would not even require that a person have a real consultation with a palliative care doctor, before MAID is offered, to know what quality of life they can have. We are hearing, even as recently as today, stories about isolation and about COVID being a determining factors in people's decision to end their life prematurely. In Canada, that should not be acceptable.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-7 seeks to amend medical assistance in dying by eliminating various safeguards on how and when the service is delivered and introducing others. Some of the changes to end-of-life decision-making include the removal of a 10-day waiting period between MAID requests and its administration, proceeding without immediate consent and the creation of a second track that allows individuals who do not meet the reasonably foreseeable death criteria to receive MAID.

I proudly voted against the second reading of Bill C-7 because it does not adequately protect Canadians from harm. The bill creates a pathway to end of life that would disproportionately impact the disabled without sufficiently encouraging the alternatives. It also does not include sufficient consideration for the right of doctors to refuse to provide death as a service. 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 these bills.

I have been told that members of the justice committee have heard first-hand from disability advocates vehemently opposed to Bill C-7 and its rapid expansion of MAID, who argue it amounts to a “deadly form of discrimination”, making it easier for persons with disabilities to die than to live. 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 and medical professionals.

Conservatives are focused on ensuring that this type of legislation includes safeguards for the most vulnerable in our society as well as for the conscience rights of physicians and health professionals. The opposition has introduced a number of reasonable amendments to reinstate balances the government has removed including: first, reinstating the 10-day reflection period when death is reasonably foreseeable; second, maintaining the requirement for two independent witnesses when death is foreseeable; third, ensuring physicians have expertise in the patient's condition; fourth, extending the reflection period when death is not reasonably foreseeable; fifth, protecting vulnerable patients by requiring the patient to be the one who first requests information on medical assistance in dying; and sixth, protecting conscience rights for health care professionals.

It is essential that the government begin a separate and comprehensive parliamentary review of the original MAID legislation passed in 2016 and the state of palliative care in Canada. It is critical that this review analyzes how the government's MAID legislation negatively impacts persons with disabilities. I might add, such a review could have taken place over the summer, but instead the Liberal government shut down Parliament and prorogued it to hide their ethical scandals.

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. Each time, the Liberals refused. Canada's Conservatives will continue to highlight the flaws in the government's MAID legislation that threatens the lives, rights and dignity of people with disabilities and work to protect vulnerable Canadians, especially persons with disabilities. Canadians deserve this much.

In the midst of a global pandemic, and at a time when people with disabilities are experiencing significant hardship, the government should be ensuring access to needed support, but it is offering people with disabilities an assisted death. To add insult to injury, Bill C-7 is being rushed through the parliamentary process. Given the implications of the bill, this is unconscionable.

The Government of Canada prides itself on championing inclusion and accessibility. With its current position of the reintroduction of the MAID legislation, 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. This is a betrayal of the fundamental principles of inclusion, and one that puts the lives of people with disabilities at risk.

If the government is truly committed to building a more inclusive and accessible Canada, it must continue to restrict MAID to end-of-life circumstances and prevent MAID from being provided on the basis of having a disability. The government has a responsibility to protect the human rights and dignities of all Canadians, especially persons with disabilities.

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

Mr. Speaker, a 10-day reflection period, which can already be waived in certain circumstances, is really all that we are asking for with the first amendment. The second amendment calls for a 120-day period for those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable so that people could actually get treatment before they are pushed forward into this or before they proceed with it.

I just think that these amendments are eminently reasonable. Anybody, regardless of what side of the issue they are on, should be able to accept that a 10-day reflection period before a person dies is quite minimal. It is either that or the government's position right now of same-day death, and being able to request and receive it on the same day. I do not think that a person's worst day should be their last day.

I just cannot understand why the government will not listen to the witnesses, listen to the experts and accept these reasonable amendments. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite unconscionable, as I said, to shorten this reflection period in the guise of providing a more immediate response to shortening a person's pain, understanding that, a lot of times, people under such circumstances could have other alternatives provided or presented to them and, therefore, change the situation altogether. However, once MAID is administered, it would be too late for anybody to reverse the decision, and that is why a reflection period, especially for those who do not have a reasonably foreseeable condition, needs to be reinstated in order to have the chance to reconsider.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Steveston for his great speech on this. As I have gotten to know him over the last year or so, he is a valued member here, and I am very happy to call him a colleague.

One of the issues we have seen with the removal of the 10-day waiting period is that there is no real ability to withdraw the request. As we have seen in Canada, it has been reported that over 270 people a year withdraw their request for assisted suicide. I wonder if the member has any thoughts on whether the bill should address that better.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to represent the good people of Steveston. My riding also includes an area of Richmond East that is populated with a lot of good citizens, so it is important to actually mention the full name of Steveston—Richmond East.

In matters of life and death, as I mentioned in my speech, I think it is prudent for any government to provide as much protection as it can, especially for vulnerable citizens of the population. With a decision like MAID where there is no reversal, it is even more important that people make that decision under careful consideration, consultation and discussion with families and medical professionals, so that they understand its implications.

Therefore, I think that it would not be unreasonable to reintroduce the 10-day period of reflection or even a longer reflection period for those who do not have a reasonably foreseeable condition.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure tonight to speak to Bill C-7 at report stage, an act to amend the Criminal Code on medical assistance in dying.

My journey on this over the last while, as a new member of Parliament and listening to my constituents, has been one where I realized this is a very personal issue and brings out a very strong and emotional response from people on all sides of this issue. The stories are personal and impactful and people have very strong opinions on all matters to do with the bill.

The thing that has landed for me as I have considered this is that there are a few things we need to ensure are dealt with in the legislation. One, as we have heard many of my colleagues talk about, is the protection of the most vulnerable in our society. The second is the protection of the conscience rights of physicians and health professionals. To that effect, a number of amendments were introduced by my party at the committee stage, for great reason.

The first one talked about reinstating the 10-day reflection period when death was reasonably foreseeable. I was in the House last week and had the privilege of listening to some debate on this matter. It was a very moving experience for me as I listened to my colleague, the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook, share a very personal story in a question to a member. It was a very moving and impactful story.

He talked about the finality of the decision his daughter made when she chose to take her own life some years ago. He talked about how it was at a very low point in her life that she chose to take her own life. We talk about the removal of the 10-day reflection period, but when I heard that story, it personally moved me and caused me to say that it is so important that we protect people in their most vulnerable moments.

My colleague talked a few minutes ago about the idea of maintaining the requirement for two independent witnesses when death was foreseeable. As an accountant for many years, dealing with many legal and financial matters, there were so many things I did over my career that required the signatures of multiple witnesses. The matters I thought were important over all of those years were nowhere near the importance of determining life and death matters like we are talking about today. The requirement for two independent witnesses being reduced to one is appalling when I consider the matters I dealt with as a professional over the years, which required the signatures of at least two or multiple people.

The other point we have talked about over the last few weeks is ensuring physicians have expertise in a patient's condition. It is imperative that we maintain the ability for people to prove it and have multiple opinions. The extension of the reflection period when death is not reasonably foreseeable is another amendment the Conservatives believe is vital and important to this process.

Protecting vulnerable patients by requiring them to be the ones to first request information on medical assistance in dying is really important. It overwhelms me to think that a vulnerable member of our society could walk into a doctor's office or a health provider's office, while being at a low point and suffering from whatever ailment, and a health care professional or somebody in a position of trust initiating a conversation about medical assistance in dying. It is unconscionable.

The removal of that provision is not acceptable. For that reason, there is no way I would ever support this with those kinds of things still included in the bill.

As I mentioned earlier, there is the protecting of conscience rights for health care professionals. We need to respect the opinions, beliefs and rights of those people to maintain their values and beliefs and maintain the things they believe are important in their approach to their professional journey. It is imperative we protect those folks. The thing I have heard the most from people, along with the protecting vulnerable people, is protecting the conscience rights of health care professionals.

As we think about the process, any legislation that is introduced in Parliament requires a thorough review. Just like I talked about in the context of having the two independent witnesses, when we are talking about matters that are literally life and death, it is important that we ensure we have due process. There was the review that was supposed to be done.

We have a strong belief that this decision should have been appealed to the Supreme Court so we could get certainty in the framework. So many of these things did not get accomplished, as has been mentioned by a number of my colleagues and members today. This is somewhat as a result of the prorogation of Parliament and the fact that we missed a number of weeks of opportunity to debate legislation and deal with these important matters.

I want to reflect upon the witnesses and the testimony that was presented to the justice committee. We heard from numerous people and groups that advocated on behalf of people with disabilities. People are opposed to the bill and the rapid extension of the legislation that has been put before us compared to the former legislation, Bill C-14. It is shameful that we are rushing this. It is a matter of life and death. We are now rushing this to try to get it done before Christmas. We could have done so much more in the weeks past.

As Conservatives, we will continue to fight on behalf of the vulnerable in our society. We will continue to fight on behalf of all Canadians with disabilities. We will continue to ensure that their interests are protected and that they are protected as we move forward in this process.

I want to comment on the impact of this on indigenous people. As the shadow minister for indigenous services, I am always engaged in the lives of those folks. As I speak to my indigenous and first nations friends, they really struggle with this legislation. There is a spiritual element and spiritual being to a lot of indigenous folks. They struggle with the advancement of the legislation and how rapidly it is moving.

I could go on for a while about some of the inequities experienced by indigenous people. I could talk about some of the witnesses at the committee. They talked about the voices of indigenous people not being heard, even though the percentage of the indigenous population in the Northwest Territories, from Nunavut to some of the other communities is so high. Those voices were not heard and have not been heard.

I have a quote that states, “The Indigenous peoples of Canada, including those living with disabilities, do have a voice, however, the opportunity to speak to Bill C-7 has not been adequately conveyed or provided” to those groups.

I want to end with a letter from one of my constituents and I want to frame this carefully. This is from a gentleman and his wife who served for years as chaplains of the Salvation Army in my community. They have dealt with disadvantaged people for many years. They reached out to me early on in this process.

Their letter states:

“As two of your constituents, we are concerned about Bill C-7 and the changes to Canada's law on medical assistance in dying. Canadians living with disabilities and chronic ailments as well as other vulnerable people already have difficulty getting the support they need to live. Removing the end of life requirement from the MAID law puts these Canadians at even greater risk. We oppose changes to remove the safeguards for MAID law for those whose death is foreseeable, like the 10-day reflection period, the ability to consent at the time of death or the requirement for two independent witnesses. We urge you to fight for these safeguards. It is essential that the government protect vulnerable Canadians from abuse and harm. We urge you to call for a reintroduction of an end of life requirement in the MAID law.”

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe it comes from a genuine place of wanting to protect Canadians, but the ultimate result is limiting individuals' charter rights. I have heard a number of Conservatives, and the member is not the only one, talk about the conscience rights of doctors, about which we should all be concerned. It is why there was an amendment in the original bill in 2016 about those rights.

This is a question I asked a number of witnesses at the Standing Committee on Justice in 2016, and I will ask the member. This is such a red herring in this debate.

Could he name for me any time in Canadian history or give me an example of one of his constituents, a physician or anyone, who was required to perform a medical procedure against their will and if not, why is the Conservative Party continuing to perpetrate this red herring during this debate to limit people's charter rights?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will not go into specific examples, but I have talked to many physicians and health care providers and this is an issue for them. They do not want to be put in a place where they are going to be challenged and going to be before a court because of their beliefs. We have a fundamental right in our country for freedom of religion and a freedom of belief, and it should apply in this case as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, the ignorance of the member for St. Catharines of the policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons in his own province is quite striking.

The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons has a policy that requires physicians to provide effective referral and in emergency situations, to provide services that are the standard of the care, even if they go against their conscience. That is a fact. It is an existing college policy.

The member claims to be unaware of the predicament his constituents are in. The fact of this is that when we debated medical assistance in dying last time, we spoke about the case of Dr. Nancy Naylor, who was a palliative care physician in Ontario. She said that because of the pre-existing policy, she was being forced to close her practice earlier.

The striking ignorance of the member for St. Catharines on these facts from his own province about the attack on conscience in the country is incredible. I would love to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the examples he has outlined are a perfect example of the situation where that has happened in Ontario. It is imperative that we protect the beliefs and the choices physicians and health care providers want to make in their own journeys and their own professional practices.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is repeating the same red herring. The hon. member from across the way did not say that it happened. He said that a witness said it may happen and they were concerned about it.

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

Yes I did. It is the policy. It has happened.

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

If the hon. member would let me speak, I believe I have the floor.

Again, I will repeat the question because the hon. member refused to answer it. Could he name one single incident where a doctor in the province of Ontario or anywhere in the country has been required to do any medical procedure against his or her will? I have a spoiler alert. He cannot. Why is he repeating this red herring?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to get into a debate, maybe he should actually recognize where my riding is, which is in northern Saskatchewan, not in Ontario. Let us actually talk about practical—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I am going to repeat that again, because I am not sure how much was registered by the hon. member who is currently online and who has the floor.

To the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, while I was standing, and as I mentioned, there was some disorder in the House. I was interrupting for that reason. His last sentence or two was probably not registered in debate. I am going to go back to him and let him finish up his final thought on that, and then we will carry on with debate.

The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, not knowing exactly what [Technical difficulty—Editor]

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Let us try that. We are working in manual mode here right now. I think we are encountering some problems with the console. We will try to work in that manner.

I just want to thank the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove for raising that point as well and helping me to recognize that we were not getting audio even from the Speaker's chair. I thank him for that.

We are now going to go to resuming debate, the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

Suspension of Sitting

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We are going to have to interrupt the hon. member. It would appear that we are not registering audio on those who are participating online, on the Zoom platform, as well.

We are going to have to momentarily suspend the proceedings, just to see if we can get that corrected. I will ask the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove to stand by. We will suspend momentarily until we are ready to go again. As soon as that happens, we will let the members who are online, and also those here in the House, know that we are ready to go again.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 9:26 p.m.)

(The House resumed at 9:37 p.m.)

Sitting Resumed

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We are going to try this again. We think we have a fix in place to at least get us through the evening until we can get something else sorted out. There is some kind of technical issue, but I think we are at a point where we can continue and get back under way.

We are going to go back to the start of the 10 minutes that we began for the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove, so he will have his full 10 minutes, and we will restart that right at that location.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if he is still on, but I believe the final response from the member hon. for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River was also missed. I was told the sound problem was also occurring at that point, just so you are aware. I do not know if we want to go back to him or not, but that is just for information.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for thinking of that. He is probably right, although we will have to check on that with debates to see if that did, in fact, get picked up.

The hon. member is no longer online. I do not like to point out the absence or presence of hon. members, but nonetheless it appears that we are not able to go back to him in this case, so we will go back then. I thank the hon. member.

We will go to resuming debate with the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government's proposed legislation to expand the availability of MAID to people whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable is, in my opinion, deeply flawed and the term MAID, in those circumstances, is a misnomer. If Bill C-7 passes, we are no longer talking about doctors and nurses helping those who are dying and alleviating suffering, but helping people to die who are not even near death.

The reasonable foreseeability of natural death standard, which was so central to the Carter decision, makes sense from a medical perspective, as doctors might be willing to expedite the natural dying process given their traditional roles of assisting medically to relieve suffering. It is quite another question whether medical ethics contemplate doctors now bringing death into the equation, where natural death is not even reasonably foreseeable. It is no longer medical assistance in dying, but medical aid to end a difficult life. This is a big shift for Canadians, but the average Canadian was not even consulted on this big shift.

After the Truchon decision of the Quebec Superior Court, the Attorney General and the Liberal government are treating as settled constitutional doctrine this very key question, whether those who are not dying but suffering grievously and irremediably must be given the right to choose MAID. The government side of the House, throughout the debate on this topic, has stated that it has consulted widely with Canadians, but the extent of the consultations was an online survey that was open for a couple of weeks, containing confusing and ambiguous questions with multiple choice answers that left some respondents, people I have spoken to, having to choose the least of a selection of evils. The public was never asked whether the reasonable foreseeability of natural death standard should be dropped. A judge in one province thought so, but what do Canadians think? We will never know, because the question was not asked. A so-called public consultation that fails to ask the key question is not a real consultation. It is a pretext for the government to advance an ideological agenda.

Truchon was poorly reasoned and unbalanced. It has been left unappealed. By failing to appeal this decision, the Attorney General and the government have conceded that one judge in one province can curtail Parliament's power to promote broader societal interests in protecting people who are elderly, ill, disabled or vulnerable. One judge in a lower court was allowed to overturn Parliament's well-reasoned response to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, and Parliament's well-considered opinion expressed in Bill C-14, four years ago. In my opinion, the Attorney General failed to do his job.

What happens if nothing happens? What if this bill does not pass, either in the House or in the Senate, before the Quebec Superior Court's now-extended deadline of December 18? It will become law in Quebec, which means that provision in our Criminal Code will restrict MAID to only those whose death is reasonably foreseeable in Quebec. That is, out of circumstance, better than the new regime introduced by this flawed Bill C-7, so let it fall. Let the deadline come and go. There will be more protection for vulnerable people if nothing happens than if Bill C-7 becomes law.

If all Bill C-7 did was reflect the Truchon requirement, then this bill would be more acceptable. Rather, the government has taken this opportunity to go much farther than was required by the Truchon decision.

Bill C-7 includes some additions that were not required by Truchon, including advance directives and dropping the requirement for contemporary consent. It also drops the reflection period for those whose death is reasonably foreseeable and, for no apparent good reason, it drops the requirement for two witnesses.

Should we leave the safeguards in place? It has been argued by the government side of House that safeguards are just barriers to implementing the decisions that people have already made. However, that is exactly what safeguards are for. They are intended to be barriers to protect the vulnerable. That is the objective, not to create inconvenience, although safeguards may be inconvenient in some cases.

Now I want to talk about advance directives. We have heard arguments in favour of them, and some have cited the Audrey Parker case. Ms. Parker chose to end her life earlier than she had planned because she feared losing cognitive ability to make the decision later on, when she would have really preferred to make her final decision to die. The best argument, in my opinion, against the Audrey principle is that some people have indeed changed their mind when the time came for the lethal injection.

The first annual report on MAID in Canada, published in July 2020, stated that 3.6% of patients who had made a written request for MAID later changed their mind and withdrew their request. While 3.6% seems like a low number, it was based on 7,300 MAID deaths. That means 263 people changed their minds.

I want to go back to the consultation of 300,000 Canadians. If the government had asked as a question about whether Canadians were accepting of a safeguard that would be designed such that only 263 people would have died, with their lives terminated against their wishes, I think the answer would have been quite different. That is the thing about consultations and surveys: They depend very much on the way questions are written. I do not think Canadians were properly consulted.

The same argument can apply to the 10-day reflection period. The whole idea is to let people reflect on the gravity of the document they have just signed and have the opportunity to change their minds. Last year, 263 people did indeed change their minds. We need to protect people like them.

I now want to talk about seniors care. According to that same report, 771 MAID recipients gave isolation and unbearable loneliness as a reason for requesting death. Easier access to MAID is not the right solution to loneliness and isolation. It is palliative care.

I want to briefly give an example in my family. My father-in-law just recently passed away. He had excellent palliative care at Langley Memorial Hospital, and I want to thank the caregivers there. If every Canadian had palliative care like he had, this would not be the debate that it is. This is what we should be talking about. We should be talking about expanding palliative care, rather than expanding MAID to people whose death is not even reasonably foreseeable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am enjoying this debate. It is interesting to find there is a new-found love of the Supreme Court in the Conservative Party. There was nothing in existence before, as the former Conservative government did nothing after the Carter decision. However, there is a new-found love, and these unconstitutional requirements need to wait years longer. This is from a party that did not support the previous legislation.

Why is the hon. member suggesting that individuals cannot change their minds? That is a dangerous thing to say. It is not that this legislation requires a person to make up their mind and they cannot possibly change it. Why does he and the Conservative Party mislead and suggest that people cannot change their minds, that people will be forced to die against their will? Is their argument so thin that they have to resort to those kinds of arguments?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I will talk about the Supreme Court of Canada. As a lawyer practising law for many years, I have the deepest respect for the Supreme Court of Canada. Very many well-written decisions come out of there, which are shaping Canadian society. I have the deepest respect for them. If the Truchon decision had been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, we would have had a different outcome. We certainly would have had good constitutional considerations put into the decision.

As for people changing their mind, I recognize that Bill C-7 would allow people to change their mind if they have cognitive ability, but that is the whole point. Advance requests do not protect people who have cognitive disability at the time that the lethal injection is going to be applied. This also puts the doctor in a very difficult position of having to make that final decision to apply the lethal injection. I do not think that we are any further ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about this issue of people changing their mind. I would refer him and members of the House to the powerful testimony, before the committee, of Dr. Ramona Coelho. She is a physician who has, within her practice, a very large number of vulnerable people. She is practising in Ontario.

She expressed concern with the way this legislation is set up, removing safeguards and dramatically shortening timelines, in one case completely eliminating the timeline so they could have same-day death. She made the point that there is a real risk that people who are experiencing temporary suicidal ideation will not receive the care and treatment that they need that allows them to move in a different direction, and that the result will be people being pushed into choosing this option without seeing the alternatives and without seeing what may very well be the light at the end of the tunnel.

We know that the data suggest that when people have the onset of a disability in their life, that can be a very difficult adaptation period, that people can certainly experience genuine angst and suicidal ideation, but temporary suicidal ideation. That speaks to the importance of an appropriate time frame, at least a 10-day reflection period, and for at least the opportunity, in the case of a disability, to get information and to receive treatment first. That is the testimony we heard at the justice committee. I would appreciate the member's feedback.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point of a 10-day reflection period or any reflection period. It is for the person who just signed the document to give deep reflection to the document that he or she has just signed as to whether this is the right thing. It might have been the right thing at the time. It could very well be that within the reflection period they could change their mind. It was a good safeguard that was put in place in Bill C-14, a well-considered opinion of this Parliament, and it should be maintained. There is absolutely no reason to eliminate it, if the purpose is to comply with the Truchon decision.

[Derek Sloan, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue and I am pleased and honoured to speak to it tonight. I would like to share, from the perspective of at least certain communities in Canada, some of the issues that certainly many members in our caucus and others have with the bill.

Many people feel that the government has essentially ignored the concerns of Canada's disabled community, their doctors and their advocates who have made it clear that the bill would cause harm to their community. They have also ignored indigenous communities in their misgivings about the bill. Personally, I have been reached out to by physicians, representatives from advocacy groups for people with disabilities, physicians who serve the disabled, palliative care physicians and, most powerfully, disabled Canadians who depend on caregivers to live their lives.

I can assure the House that Canada's disability community is firmly against Bill C-7 and I think that is clear in the testimony we have seen. They are afraid of the message it sends that the lives of disabled Canadians are not worth living. Physicians have expressed serious concerns with euthanasia becoming a standard of care as the bill would mandate. They are clear in expressing that a 90-day waiting period is not nearly enough. It is very common for patients who experience a catastrophic medical episode like a stroke or who receive a diagnosis of a debilitating disease to express death wishes. Part of a doctor's job is to remind their patients that their life has value and to encourage them to persevere. It is also very common for initial suicidal ideations to go away in a matter of months after a patient becomes more used to their situation.

A 90-day reflection period is simply not enough time. It makes me tremble when I think of how many lives will be needlessly cut short if the bill passes. The government should have appealed the Truchon decision to defend its own law in the Supreme Court and is, in my view recklessly, rushing to pass this new law before the initial review of the MAID legislation has taken place. It is important to recognize the fact that the mandated five-year review of the initial MAID legislation has not taken place yet. The government is jumping the gun here in proposing the bill, which loosens the necessary safeguards in place to ensure euthanasia is safe, rare, never coerced and never rushed.

The Quebec Superior Court's Truchon decision declared that euthanasia ought to be made available to those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable. The government has decided that the law needs to be changed to align with the decision of a provincial court, ignoring calls from this side of the House to appeal the decision and defend its own law. As a brief caveat on that point, I feel it pertinent to mention that when the first iteration of this law came, the one that was struck down by the Truchon court, some of the arguments that were made on this side of the House dealt with the slippery slope argument and that was often stated to be an incorrect argument. It was stated that no, the bill is legal, rare and safe. Yet not even reaching the review process that was in place in that law, we are seeing more expansion.

Whenever we think of this law, I would like us to think about potential expansion that may happen in the future, that of children, that of mental illness that we see elsewhere. Bill C-7 does not simply expand access to euthanasia to those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable. It goes beyond Truchon in loosening the safeguards that were already in place, safeguards that frankly have not been strictly adhered to.

Tabling this legislation before the scheduled review of the euthanasia regime in Canada and without appealing the Truchon decision is irresponsible. The government is ignoring the experts. A recent statement was penned and signed by over 1,000 physicians in Canada in response to Bill C-7. That is a lot of physicians. When we are presented with a document with 1,000 signatures from experts in a relevant field, the House should pay close attention to what that document says. Let me read a few important quotes from the statement:

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....This is not the medicine that we have devoted our lives to practicing. Our intent is to heal and to alleviate suffering, not to deliberately end life. We advocate for the lives of our patients, not their deaths....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.

It goes on to say that, sadly, the bill would recklessly prevent countless Canadians from accessing that support or attention, and they will opt instead to end their lives in a time of unimaginable distress. This is a tragedy that we in the House can prevent.

The Liberal members on the justice committee voted against our amendments that would require patients to receive meaningful access to care before MAID would be carried out. Do we really want to offer death to disabled Canadians before we offer them care?

We know that the option for assisted death cannot be truly voluntary and free from coercion without the option for quality, long-term palliative care that truly meets the needs of a patient. The government seems more focused on putting people out of their misery than on investing in what Canadians in difficult situations need for alleviating that misery.

I would like to share some statistics and comments put out by the Canadian Association for Long Term Care. Its website says, “The 2017 Federal Budget included a historic $6 billion over 10 years for home and community care. Long-term care was not included in this investment.” The site notes that the national housing strategy does not include long-term care, and the home support worker pilot program for foreign caregivers does not include employment in long-term care. It also says 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, but not one dollar was committed to supporting long-term care.

I will move on to the moving testimony of Roger Foley, who testified to the justice committee from his hospital bed. He told us that he was essentially given the choice between inadequate care and having his life ended. He was directly approached four times by caregivers who pressured him to receive MAID. This is illegal, but it is happening anyway, and Roger is not the only one who has had this happen. We need to ensure that before people are presented with the option for euthanasia, they have actually been provided with options for the services they need for living with dignity.

Without conscience rights protections, many physicians have indicated they will be forced to leave their profession if the bill passes, including Dr. Ramona Coelho, who brilliantly made this point to the justice committee along with the rest of the testimony condemning the bill. The Liberal chair of the justice committee ruled Conservative amendments for conscience protections inadmissible because the amendments went beyond the scope of the bill. When the Conservative members challenged the chair, the Liberal members voted down our challenge.

Expanding access to euthanasia to disabled Canadians who are not dying will cause many unintended consequences.

First, it is important to listen to the palliative care physicians who are telling us that the term “MAID” no longer applies and that the term “medically administered death” is more appropriate. Disabled Canadians are not dying, so we require a stronger term than “assistance in dying”.

Second, there are serious concerns that making medically administered death a standard of care will dishearten many physicians, causing them to leave the profession altogether. I have had physicians reach out to me and tell me this.

Third, the bill may cause a breakdown of the patient-doctor relationship. It is hard to trust doctors when they repeatedly recommend death because they do not have the resources to provide the care people need.

Let us work on this. Let us ensure that we are actually taking care of the most vulnerable Canadians. Let us give them hope; let us give them help. Let us make sure they know their lives have value.

Kristine Cowley suffered a spinal cord injury 33 years ago. She now has a doctorate and is a professor at a university. She was a wheelchair track Paralympian. She is married with three children and has travelled extensively. This was all done after her accident.

Kris shared that it took her five years after her spinal cord injury to feel great again. She said, “To all outward appearances, I'm a successful person living and contributing to our community, but I'd be lying if I told you that I was good to go within three months of my injury when I was discharged from hospital. In fact, it was a few years before I was able to open my eyes in the morning and feel good.”

How many stories like Kristine's will never be told if Bill C-7 passes? That is what we need to ask ourselves.

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

Madam Speaker, it is ironic that the hon. member stands here and talks about a doctor's job and says we should listen to the experts, as this hon. member speaks against doctors. He has spoken against Dr. Theresa Tam and has questioned her loyalty to this country as she is trying to protect millions of Canadians. We should listen to doctors, but he gets to pick and choose based on whether they ideologically support him.

How can he stand in this place, after questioning the validity of vaccines and our public health authorities, and even suggest that he understands a doctor's role? Why does the hon. member not trust doctors in this country, and why will he not let them do their jobs?

[Derek Sloan, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the concerns that I raised directly from the mouths of doctors are sound. The critiques that many of us have had about the advice we have received through the Liberal government and other officials on COVID-19 has been warranted with respect to telling us all different types of things, telling us that the virus was not transmissible human to human or telling us that travel bans do not work. These are all things that are worthwhile to discuss.

What is more important are the comments from these doctors that they will be unable to do the work they have been called to do when it comes to protecting life, as opposed to ending life.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, one thing that was talked about earlier tonight was how long it takes to get psychiatric help in Canada, especially for people in rural and remote communities. The wait time is four to eight times longer than the 90-day reflection period the bill contains.

Is that a concern for my colleague? People do not even have access to the help they deserve and that they need. MAID could be something that people would turn to, rather than trying to get help because it takes so long to get the help they need.

[Derek Sloan, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, as far as I am concerned, in a situation where someone becomes ill or disabled, there can be a period of time of adjustment. We owe it to Canadians to give them the right supports and the right services so that they can make the decision that is best for them. We know from testimony that many people who choose MAID do so because of perhaps not having the resources to deal with their issues. There are many auxiliary issues that could be dealt with in a way other than ending their lives prematurely.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, having studied the bill, I think there are enough safeguards in the bill to protect people, but I do hear the concerns of people in the diversability and disability community. There is a lot of fearmongering going on around this bill. People have a lack of trust and for good reason. People with disabilities have been left behind. They deal with institutional poverty. They do not get the care they need. They do not get the services they need. We have seen governments, Conservative and Liberal, cutting these kinds of services. We have seen how the provincial governments do not take their responsibility seriously in looking after people.

Would the hon. member agree something like a guaranteed livable income or a universal pharmacare program would help to take care of people and make sure they have their medicines and that there is an income floor under which they cannot fall, to ensure that people have a good quality of life with the medicine, services and supports they need?

[Derek Sloan, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of things that can be done. To me, one of the first things that can be done is funding an adequate long-term care program for any Canadian that needs or desires it. That would go a long way to reducing the requests for MAID and for addressing issues that many people are concerned about when they choose MAID in the first place.

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

Madam Speaker, once again, I am so thankful to have another opportunity to speak to the bill.

I really feel there are totally inadequate safeguards built into this piece of legislation. We heard powerful testimony at the committee, and we heard from key members of our society who have very legitimate and grave concerns regarding the implementation of Bill C-7.

It is a cause for a pause for all of us as parliamentarians right now. When some of those from our most vulnerable sectors are speaking up and raising very legitimate concerns about the bill, I believe we, as parliamentarians, have an obligation to pause and reflect carefully about the ramifications of a bill with consequences of such finality for people.

The reason I say this is that we heard powerful testimony from people like Roger Foley, who spoke so powerfully from his hospital bed, saying that he was doing it because he was fighting for others who are in the position that he is in. He wants the amendments that we are proposing to be put into this bill to make sure there are adequate protections for persons with disabilities. Never should anyone, any Canadian, be made to feel pressured or encouraged to make this decision of such finality.

I believe, right now, as parliamentarians, we have heard enough witnesses powerfully speak, enough testimony at committee, to say that it is time to put a pause on this and reflect carefully before we go ahead and rush into the implementation of the bill.

I go back to the fact that I simply do not understand why the government did not take the step to appeal this decision from a lower court to the Supreme Court, and to make sure that every measure and every step of precaution is put in place when it comes to such an important piece of legislation. Here it is and we are feeling this pressure to put the bill through so quickly, without adequately addressing the very legitimate concerns that are coming from persons with disabilities.

I think of Ms. Krista Carr's powerful testimony before committee. She is the executive vice-president for Inclusion Canada. She said that some of the worst fears of the disabled are being realized in Bill C-7. She raised these concerns with such passion and conviction. She was speaking on behalf of literally thousands of Canadians and persons living with disabilities and their families.

It would behoove this Parliament, based on those kinds of testimonies, to pause and reflect, and to ask if we are doing everything we can to make sure that we are putting adequate safeguards in place so that people will have the time to reconsider and to reflect.

One thing I know, from my background and the experience I come from, having worked in the ministry for many years, having walked with people through some of the darkest corridors that life can offer, whether they are dealing with mental health-related challenges or substance abuse or addiction-related challenges or whether they are dealing with disabilities or they have just gotten a life-altering diagnosis, is that those initial hours and days can be so overwhelming for people.

In fact, people can feel like there is no pathway forward for them. They may wonder if life is worth continuing. Anytime people get devastating news or are faced with a reality that is extremely uncomfortable or devastating, when they initially hear it, one of the most important things that is needed for anyone walking through that period in their life is for the adequate supports to be in place to help them navigate it, so that they know they are not alone and that others have been there before and that there will be adequate supports, if needed, for them to help them through that valley.

What happens, and what I have discovered and witnessed at a personal level that has greatly impacted my life, is that, when people who have faced devastating diagnoses or have gone through an extremely difficult season in their lives and have chosen to live on through adversity, pain and a devastating diagnosis, many times the people around them were inspired and greatly helped. They helped others who were devastated and feeling like they could not get through the challenge they were facing, but because they made that difficult decision in those dark times, because they had the time to pause, reflect and hear from those who love them and have their best interest at heart, they made the decision to live on.

As a result of that, others were positively impacted and inspired, oftentimes, throughout their life. People who have inspired many other Canadians and those throughout the world were oftentimes those who had to face the most difficult of circumstances. I feel that there are so many other stories out there yet to be realized and yet to be seen that will inspire other people to continue on, even when it looks like they have every reason to give up.

Obviously, there are things concerning the issues of life and death that none of us have easy answers for. We, as parliamentarians, are obviously not fully equipped to be able to see the whole scope and lens. However, that only further points to the necessity to slow things down and carefully consider the ramifications of this type of bill.

There are legitimate concerns being raised by persons with disabilities and those who work with them. They are also being raised by others, such as physicians, doctors and nurses, who are working to save lives every day and feel like this could infringe upon their conscience rights or their beliefs. I feel we, as parliamentarians, have an obligation to make sure those concerns are heard and reflected in whatever bill we pass. Why we would want to rush through something of this great consequence simply baffles me, so I am hoping that Parliament will take the time and reflect, especially during the season we are entering.

Our country has been through a very challenging year. We have gone through a lot of things. Now we are heading into the holiday season, a time of reflection and a time, hopefully, where possible, to be with family. I hope we will take the time to have those conversations with those whom we love, hear the concerns that they have and recognize that there are those around us who are in a very difficult place. Perhaps we can reach out to them, share a bit of hope and stay in touch with them to help them navigate a difficult spot. Maybe they are going through a rough time, and they have got a lot of things that they are having to process, and really what they need more than anything is adequate support.

Let us look and reflect, as parliamentarians, on this aspect. Are we offering Canadians enough supports in the areas of palliative care and hospice and are we providing adequate support for those persons who are living with disabilities so that we are giving people every opportunity to live their lives to the fullest?

With that, I thank members for this opportunity, and I challenge the House to carefully reflect and hit the pause button here before we rush through with any type of legislation. We have heard enough powerful testimony to tell us it is worth pausing for.

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

Madam Speaker, it is bizarre to hear speaker after speaker from the Conservative Party talk about medical assistance in dying as though it is some fleeting concept, as though it is an impulsive decision that Canadians make in a moment. It is a though they are saying, “If only there were the safeguards in place, and if only there were a medical professional there, or any other support.”

Why is the Conservative Party portraying this as though it is not the most significant decision in people's lives, which they have taken with questions to their medical professionals and their faith leaders? Why are they portraying it as though it is something that they just think of overnight? Why are they portraying it that way in an attempt to torpedo this legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, I would simply respond to the hon. member by asking this question: Why would we rush a decision of great consequence, which will have huge ramifications, when we are hearing powerful testimonies like that of Roger Foley, who felt pressured in this situation and that he was being encouraged to take that step?

It is time that we hit pause and reflect, because these are very serious matters. These people deserve to have all of their perspectives heard. I would think the hon. member would certainly consider the testimony heard at committee from someone like Ms. Carr, who represents many Canadians living with disabilities. She expressed grave concerns. I am sure he would agree that these concerns need to be heard.

If great Canadian citizens, who are right there in some of the most affected communities, are saying there is an alarm bell and they have grave concerns with this bill, should we not pause and reflect based on that kind of testimony?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his service both in this place and before.

By way of response to the point made by the parliamentary secretary, it is important to underline, first of all, that it is the people living with disabilities who have encountered the health care system, as well as medical professionals, who testified at committee about the importance of the safeguards that are in place right now. They did so recognizing that in the vast majority of cases, the system tries to do its best to treat people with respect, affirm their dignity and ensure the decisions they are making are considered in an appropriate time frame.

That is what we would like to believe happens in the majority of cases, but we know directly from the testimony that it does not happen in every case. That is why we have safeguards. Safeguards are there to respond to the general case. They are there to respond to those cases of potential abuse, those cases that are outside of what we would expect to be normal good practice, because as the legislation is written, there is the possibility of same-day death. There is the possibility of people being rushed, and that is what witnesses said happens. That is why they said we need the safeguards.

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

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with the hon. member that now is the time to make sure that safeguards are put in place. With a matter as serious as this and when decisions of such finality are at stake, why would we not, as parliamentarians, pause and reflect? Based on the testimonies we heard and the potential ramifications of this legislation being passed, this bill can have huge, perhaps even unintended consequences, that could dramatically affect the lives of our most vulnerable.

I will reiterate that the character of a nation is revealed in how it treats its most vulnerable. This bill inadequately addresses the needs of our most vulnerable.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has happened a few times, and I know it is late, but the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock has taken a few phone calls in the chamber. Perhaps the Speaker could advise him of the rules on such things in this place.

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

Absolutely. It is not only phone calls, but having phones on with sound. I would ask members to refrain from using their phones in the chamber.

Resuming debate, we have the hon. member for Saskatoon West.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to Bill C-7 today. I have previously spoken to this legislation several times.

I would be remiss if I did not remind the House that the reason we are here at this late hour is that the bill was originally introduced and it died with prorogation. Why was there a prorogation? Because the government had this scandal with the WE organization. As much as the Liberals maybe wanted to proceed with Bill C-7, they were more interested in trying to quell all the furor around the WE scandal. I just want to remind members in the House that this is why we are here at this late hour, speaking about this.

The legislation would amend the original MAID legislation from 2016. MAID is a very touchy, personal and non-partisan issue. I have asked my constituents many questions about this proposed law and most of them are opposed. I am opposed and I will not be supporting the legislation.

Why are we here right now? There are two examples of Liberal inaction that brought us to this place.

The first is the Quebec judge who struck down the “reasonably foreseeable” portion of the law in the Truchon case. Federal governments typically would appeal a lower court ruling, particularly one that has such profound and life-altering consequences. It is quite interesting that the Liberal government chose not to appeal this case, given that it had such significant consequences right across the country. In my opinion, the government should have appealed this case, but it chose not to.

The second reason we are here is that originally the legislation had a scheduled parliamentary review that was supposed to happen this past summer. COVID-19 threw a bit of a monkey wrench into that plan, but at the end of the day, this review has not happened. Again, inaction on the part of the government has gotten us to this place. Why was there inaction on this review? The current justice minister voted against this legislation in 2016, not because he did not agree with the legislation but because it did not go far enough, in his opinion.

The Liberals talk about consulting and listening to Canadians, but the truth is that the Liberal government has its own agenda and pushes that. The truth is that the Liberals did not want the parliamentary review the way it was defined. They wanted something less, something that they could better control. The truth is that they had their own agenda and they wanted to implement their own plans.

The Liberals will talk about consultations that they had with groups and 300,000 responses to their online consultation, but those kinds of discussions are very different from a parliamentary review. Those kinds of consultations are very easy to manipulate, easy to ignore, easy to lead people in a certain direction. It provides cover in the end for implementing the agenda they want to implement.

They had an online survey. It asked leading questions. There was very little ability for people to think outside the box, to provide their own suggestions. It was there for barely two weeks. It was a very short period of time.

It is interesting that we have had the Senate pre-study and the committee study in the House of Commons and almost nobody liked the legislation, even Liberals who spoke to it. Witness after witness had issues that they raised with the legislation and there was nearly unanimous agreement that it needed to be changed dramatically.

Therefore, here we are.

What do I think about the legislation? I sent several mailers to my constituents. We received well over 400 contacts, including phone calls, emails and letters. Roughly two-thirds of them were opposed to the legislation.

There was a lot of feedback on the rights of health care workers. Do they have the right to say no to euthanizing someone? The whole question of conscience protection came up again and again. Are medical professionals free to not participate in this? Are they free of penalty or harassment? The conscientious objection of institutions is another thing that came up, because institutions are more than bricks and mortar; they are actual people with values invested.

I have spoken of this before, but I want to raise it again.

In Saskatoon, we have a wonderful hospital called St. Paul's Hospital. It is a Catholic hospital governed by the Catholic Bishops board. The Province of Saskatchewan allows hospitals to choose which services to perform. This particular hospital operates on the basis of the Catholic faith, so it does not perform MAID. However, it does respect patients' right to choose and it will transfer patients to another hospital if MAID is requested by that patient.

Instead of MAID, St. Paul's is well known for its amazing palliative care. I have a personal example from my own family, because my mother-in-law was a patient in the palliative care wing of St. Paul's Hospital here in Saskatoon. In her case, MAID was not requested nor was it desired. She received one of 12 palliative care beds in the city. She received amazing care as she came to the end of her life and passed away peacefully in that palliative care bed.

I just want to highlight the 12 palliative care beds. Fortunately, the hospital has recently added 13 more, but even at that, 25 palliative care beds for all of northern Saskatchewan is far below what is needed. It is very inadequate. It is a bit like winning the lottery, in a sense, to get a palliative care bed in northern Saskatchewan right now, and my mother-in-law was very fortunate she was able to have that at the end of her life. In fact, 70% of Canadians do not have access to good palliative care.

The hospital actually built these 13 new beds all on its own, by raising the money to build the units. However, because there is lack of conscience protection, the hospital is being sued by activists to provide MAID. A hospital well known for amazing palliative care is being forced to defend itself in court because it will not provide MAID. We must respect the multicultural nature of Canadian society. We have to respect medical professionals and institutions and allow them to have full conscience protections, free from harassment and consequences.

As I said, MAID is a very touchy, personal and non-partisan issue. We can always find examples of people for whom MAID legislation is a difficult and unwelcome option, but I have heard many stories of cases where families were caught by surprise and forced to deal with the aftermath, or cases where a person was at a particularly low point in their health. Under this legislation, they would be able to request and receive MAID with no waiting period. I have also heard of cases where physicians or hospitals applied pressure on individuals to consider MAID.

There are a couple of stories I would like to share. A friend of mine had an elderly father who was in hospital with non-life-threatening issues. Eventually a doctor came by who suggested to his father that he think about MAID, and his father actually chose MAID without letting his family know. My friend had to explain to his elderly mom, who had the beginnings of dementia, what had happened to her husband, and to his dad. It was very difficult to explain, and very complicated. There was no consultation with the family and it was thrown on them as a surprise. In fact, they did not even have a funeral for over a year because they simply did not know how to explain it to people and cope with it.

What that example shows me is that, in the aftermath of people choosing MAID, there is literally a swath of people who are hurt emotionally by these things. The requirements for counselling and psychologists and other things are amazing.

Another story I have is about a constituent of mine, who is a disabled older person. I spoke to her because she was trying to bring in a care worker, and that led to a discussion about Bill C-7. She was very concerned about the bill's impact on disabled persons. She was worried this was going to become one of the tools in the tool belts of physicians. She went on to tell me the story of her neighbour across the street, who was also disabled, and quite depressed due to COVID-19. In the end, this neighbour of hers took her life with MAID because she felt there was no hope. Her doctor supported the patient's decision, and my constituent was very disturbed by this.

As I close, I am reminded of something a constituent of mine told me back in February, which was that we need to slow this down and not speed it up. After listening to the many witnesses who have spoken at committee, he is correct. We need to carefully consider legislation with such significant consequences.

I agree with my constituent. Yes, we need to deal with the Quebec court decision. We should appeal it, but if not, there is still only one change required. We should have the proper legislated review. We should put in place a pan-Canadian strategy for palliative care. Let us put in full conscience protection for physicians and institutions. Let us leave the 10-day waiting period. These are amendments we have proposed. Let us continue to require two independent witnesses. Let us slow this down.

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

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

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

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

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

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

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

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

The hon. member for—

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

The member is asking a question. Please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

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

The question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 3.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

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

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the recorded division stands deferred until Thursday, December 3, at the conclusion of Oral Questions.

It being 10:50 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 10:50 p.m.)

The House resumed from December 2 consideration of Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:08 p.m., pursuant to order made on Wednesday, December 2, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motions at report stage of Bill C-7.

Call in the members.

[Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:]

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order related to the vote. The hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk had to leave during the vote, so we would ask that her vote not be counted.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #26

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare Motion No. 2 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 3 defeated.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wants to request a recorded vote or request that the motion be passed on division, I invite them to rise and so indicate to the Chair.

[And one or more members having risen:]

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #27

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

When shall the bill be read a third time? At the next sitting of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 75 minutes.