Debates of Feb. 24th, 2015

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. Canada

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously if the Supreme Court of Canada does not grant an extension, provincial jurisdictions will craft different pieces of legislation across the country and we will have a situation similar to the one we had in regard to abortion, where some provinces did and some did not. We will see a lot of issues. Regardless of where they live, Canadians will not be able to access what the Supreme Court ruled is a constitutional right under section 7 of the charter.

This ruling came in December. The House has been meeting for quite a while. There needs to be a sense of compassion. We talk about dying with dignity and a lot of people are waiting. They have been waiting a year and we would be asking them to wait longer than a year in pain and suffering.

There are two downsides to asking the Supreme Court to grant an extension: it may not, and we have to think of the compassionate nature of this work.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some sadness that I rise today in response to what we have heard so far from government members. This issue should have been an opportunity for Parliament to show itself at its best. It is about the relevance of Parliament and Parliament doing what the Supreme Court of Canada has asked it to do.

We on this side had hoped that this motion would nudge the government to do the right thing, as it did two years ago when we asked for a special committee on missing and murdered indigenous women. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice at the time had no objections to the establishment of a special committee. Now we have a reference, literally, from the Supreme Court and somehow, all of a sudden, government members are objecting. What is also extraordinary is that if their strategy is to get an extension, there is absolutely no reason that I can see for the Supreme Court to grant one if there seems to be no work under way on what it has asked Parliament to do.

I come from an institution whose Latin motto was non quo sed quomodo: it is not only what we do, but how we do it. This is the time for Parliament and parliamentarians to demonstrate to Canadians that the way we will go about making decisions will be in an open way, by tackling the tough things, hearing all points of view, and not in a closed-minded way where it will appear to Canadians as if the government has already made up its mind and Parliament will not have a say and, therefore, that citizens and Canadians will not have a say.

There is no question that this debate evokes strong feelings. Therefore, it is really important that Canadians see that we are prepared to tackle this very difficult decision and important challenge that the Supreme Court has given us to get this right and put in place the safeguards that it and all Canadians know need to exist. As physicians, the member for Vancouver Centre and I both know when it is not time to prescribe. It is not time for us to prescribe what to do; it is a time for us to listen. It is the only way that we will get it right.

It is a very serious piece of work that we have been asked to do, but it is very serious that Canadians understand that it is Parliament that has been asked to do this work and to consult Canadians. It is not okay for Parliament to abdicate from this challenge that it has been given by the Supreme Court of Canada and to abdicate it to a government that has a terrible track record in consulting Canadians, asking civil servants to attend information sessions but then not listening to what was heard. We have a responsibility to develop a very transparent and accountable process so that Canadians will know what we heard and that we listened to them.

It is about listening to people with expertise and those with lived experience. It is about an opportunity for a democracy between elections to show Canadians that they were listened to and allowed to shape public policy. It is what Jane Jacobs said, that good public policy comes when the decision-makers can see in their mind's eye that people are affected. We need to listen to the people who will be affected by this legislation and get it right.

The words in paragraph 127 of the judgment, even as my colleague said, are clear, but Canadians may have very different interpretations of what constitutes a “competent adult person”, what “clearly consents” means, what “grievous and irremediable” are, what is “enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition”, and how we can ensure that Canadians are not intimidated and the vulnerable are not put at risk.

I can only interpret this as the government's refusal to govern, its refusal to tackle the tough stuff. It is hiding from it and I hope that it still has time today to take the little offering that Liberals have given on how we can show that Parliament will do its job, and that the government is not merely an administration in campaign mode that refuses to deal with the tough decisions.

It is very clear that there are many ways the government could go about this, such as a white paper for consultation or a draft bill. The online consultation that it talks about just will not work unless there is an understanding of what the questions are and whether they actually will be listened to. Some of the members are already suggesting that they need an extension or that they need to use the notwithstanding clause.

There is no question that the Supreme Court of Canada did its job unanimously. It is time for us, as parliamentarians, to do ours.

I attended probably over 2,000 births in my career as a family doctor, and I felt that my job was to ensure they were safe, elegant and what the family wanted. I attended far fewer deaths, but it was also my job to see they were serene, pain-free, and that people were able to die in dignity. All of us in the House have our stories, and we know that we have to do better.

Initiating this debate will be imperative for us to get on with the other undone business in the country in terms of the serious approach to palliative care and end-of-life care, and a serious approach to a pain strategy.

Doctor Chochinov's article from The Star, on Wednesday, February 18, really spoke to the fact that doctors were not well trained to engage in the end of life conversations. Many of the goals of care are unclear. In view of the Supreme Court's decision, these issues have never been more important and they have to be dealt with, not only by Canadians but by medical schools and associations. We have to know that real choice in end of life does not happen if people do not have optimal palliative care and optimal dignity in their lives.

I was lucky enough that my mom, at the end of her life, was able to die in dignity with a pain pump that she controlled. With my dad, on the other hand, it was not to be the end of his life. He broke his hip. He was in unbearable pain and had unacceptable pain relief, and he died 72 hours later. We did not want him to die then. Again, without a decent pain strategy and without decent palliative care, we will be unable to give people real choices.

As members know, the Canadian Medical Association has said that it wants clarity on how the courts actually distinguish between the definition of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Canadians expect us to do differently.

We know the safeguards have to be there. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities has been eloquent in terms of the need to protect the vulnerable. We know from our history with HIV-AIDS, when it was a death sentence, that people whose physicians chose to help them take their lives woke up and realized that they were merely depressed.

We know there are power differentials. Families descend on a vulnerable senior who they say has had enough. Mainly, there is a financial reward, or they are just tired of providing care.

As the member for Mount Royal has said so often, our society is judged by how we look after the most vulnerable in our society. We cannot let them down.

There are need objectives that we could use. Ontario has an objective where 70% of people over 70 would have an advanced directive as they go forward.

We need everybody to read Willie Molloy's Let Me Decide. We need to get on with the kind of efforts that the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians has mentioned.

Dame Cicely Saunders said:

You matter because you are you, and you matter to the end of your life. We will do all we can not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die.

There is no question that too many are suffering at the end. Too few die peacefully and with dignity. We need a process that uses the research, the knowledge translation, the policies, the political will, the practice, and the applied research to ensure we design a truly excellent and exemplary process for the people who expect this of their Parliament.

We must tackle this as a Parliament. We cannot let the government do this in some sort of backroom way. We cannot deal with what is practically prorogation and padlocking this place any longer, thinking that things will happen elsewhere or will not happen at all until the next government.

We implore the government members to do the right thing and let Parliament do its work. The Supreme Court and Canadians ask no less of us.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member intently. I cannot help but reflect that there is an undertone of partisanship which does not suit this debate, as other members from all sides have suggested. On the issue of time, we already have 12 months and an extra 6 months seems to be reasonable if that means we get a better law.

I would remind the House that the member and the party had years to bring forward opposition day motions or legislation on this issue and have not. The member was a minister of public health in the previous government and did nothing on this issue.

I introduced a private member's bill. I wish the member would support something in that realm.

The fact is that to now say that the Liberal Party is all for it is a little bit disingenuous. When the Liberals had the chance, they did nothing about it.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with due respect, the partisan nature is coming from the other side.

We are asking Parliament to do a proper piece of work. We are not asking to prescribe with a private member's bill. We are asking to listen to Canadians properly. We are saying that to get this right, there has to be an open process and that with the summer break, with the election forthcoming, the work needs to begin now and it needs to be totally inclusive, involving all Canadians.

We do not want this to be a partisan issue. We want to come together across all parties to do a proper piece of work that includes all Canadians, instead of pointing fingers at who did what when. Canadians do not want that from us, and they certainly do not want it from that member.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member that is based on the difference of experience between my time in Parliament and hers.

Let us look at what the government appears to be proposing. At some undefined time in the future there will be a broad-ranging consultation that will take a long time. It will not involve opposition members of Parliament. It may or not may not involve government members of Parliament. There will be a request for an extension that may nor may not be granted, after which, at some undefined point in the future, there will be, or maybe not, legislation. That is what we know from the government to this point in the debate.

The Liberal plan as set forward in the motion calls for a specific time frame and a specific manner in which to perform that consultation that will end in July. I would anticipate from the first of August until the end of October that the Department of Justice drafters could do their work in putting together legislation based on the report that would be presented at the end of July. Then from November until February 6 would be the amount of time that Parliament would have to debate, amend, perfect and pass the law.

As a junior member of Parliament to a senior member of Parliament, is that reasonable?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the member's question in a slightly different way, which would be to say that the former Liberal government had to tackle some tough stuff.

I remember the assisted reproduction issue. After the task force reported, it was very important that Minister Rock come forward with something. What he chose to do was come forward with a white paper, immediately, that we then discussed at the parliamentary committee.

He then came forward with a draft bill that we discussed. There was also the opportunity, both, I believe, in that bill, but certainly in the Young Offenders Act, for Parliament to discuss it after first reading. We, as a Liberal government, were always able to understand that we had to have Parliament's input. We had to listen to experts with the lived experience.

I also think the timeline as the member lays out is not really possible unless we get on with this now.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe.

It is a privilege to rise today to speak to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision regarding physician-assisted dying. As we all know, end-of-life issues are deeply emotional. Questions about how our family and loved ones hope to go through their final days will not be answered easily. However, anyone who has had to support a family member during a difficult time will understand that these conversations are essential to respecting the wishes of our loved ones and ensuring that we all have dignity in our final days.

We also know from recent polls and media coverage that this is not an academic topic. Canadians are having these discussions around the dinner table, and it is important that government is equally engaged. Despite the differences Canadians experience in their respective lives, be it the jobs they have held, the lifestyle they have chosen to adopt or the contributions they have made to society, all people ultimately have one thing in common; this being that we will eventually face the end of life.

Given advances in modern medicine and care practices and the fact that we are living longer lives, the reality around this experience has changed. In the past, when deaths resulted from serious or contagious diseases, accidents or otherwise natural causes, many Canadians died in their own homes in the midst of their family and community members. Now Canadians more typically spend their last days in the clinical environment of hospitals, often after a long and arduous course of battling debilitating illnesses, disease or coping with chronic conditions.

Those who are in need of palliative and end-of-life care and who are admitted into hospital settings often find themselves surrounded by medical professionals, strangers who strive to provide the best care even when death is imminent. In such cases, people are provided with very well-meaning care, but there may be little that can be done to make patients more comfortable near their lives. These situations are distressing for both the patients and the families.

That leads me to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. I will quote from its conclusion, which states:

—prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who...clearly consents to the termination of life and...has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.

It is important to reflect a bit in terms of those different pieces, which I know some people who have already spoken have done. When we hear that 80% of people actually support this measure, I really think they do not understand the full scope and if they did understand it, they might have a different perspective.

I thought this was well said, when Andrew Coyne stated:

When most people think of assisted suicide...they have in mind not only a competent adult, capable of giving consent, but someone suffering unbearable physical pain and in the last stages of a terminal disease, for whom suicide is no more than a way to hasten an end that is already both inevitable and near.

He goes on to say:

First, it is clear from the ruling that the “enduring and intolerable suffering”...is not limited to physical pain, but also psychological pain—which, besides being a murkier concept by far, raises the question of how competent the subject really is. Nor is suffering defined further: it is enough that it is intolerable “to the individual.”

He continues:

Second, nothing in the words “grievous and irremediable medical condition,” the court’s other requirement for the exercise of this right, suggests that death is near, or even likely.

Certainly many people share that perspective with respect to people who are near their end of life. However, I have heard many concerns with respect to the comments “intolerable psychological pain”. The disability associations have spoken to this very articulately. We must also look at other countries, such as Belgium, where I understand assisted suicide is now provided to children. Those comments tell me that we have to be incredibly careful in how we craft the legislation.

It is important to look at the concerns I have regarding this motion.

The first and most obvious concern is the timeframe. The leader of the third party stood up in the House and talked about how Quebec took four and a half years to craft its legislation. It took an important length of time for Quebec to get it right. As well, it took the Supreme Court of Canada well over a year just to strike down the legislation.

Crafting careful legislation will require important conversations. My colleague talked about the special committee on missing and murdered women and girls. It is important to recognize that the committee was struck for 12 months, yet it still required an extension to complete its work. It is also important to note that it was through a unanimous motion put forward by the Liberals, which we supported. However, when we got into the special committee structure that they had presented, they soon realized that there was a real flaw in terms of a special committee's structure. We needed the Native Women's Association of Canada to be an equal partner at the table, but through the unanimous motion of the House they had not struck a committee that allowed for the important partners to play a role in that conversation.

The Liberals like to use that as an example, but there were some important flaws in how that process moved forward.

One obvious partner that I see missing in this is the Canadian Medical Association. It is going to be, and must be, intimately involved in terms of the kind of legislation that ultimately comes out.

Those are my concerns with the timeframe.

We know that there will ultimately be a committee structure to deal with this particular issue, but more importantly, how many of our 308 members of Parliament will get to sit on such a special committee? There will be only 12. Therefore, all 308 members of Parliament have a responsibility right now to be talking with groups and individuals in their communities. If every single member does not send a letter to the Minister of Justice outlining the consultations they have had, they are, in my opinion, not doing the job properly.

We do have a critical job ahead of us. We have to get it right. The motion before us today is, in my opinion, very restrictive in terms of the timeframe, and it is very restrictive in terms of the structure to be used in moving forward, since there would be no critical partners at the table. We know that committees can do great work, but they have limitations in terms of the number of witnesses they can hear from and for how long.

Again, we must do this right. Having dealt with people with ALS and terminal cancer, we know that compassion needs to be shown in what we do and how we do it. We need to move forward, but to be quite frank, the motion that the Liberals have put forward is not going to provide the comprehensive response that we are going to need.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague across the way. I know that she is a nurse and understands this issue very well.

The member talked about structure and said that the structure of the suggested committee is not right. She said that she learned from the special committee on missing and murdered aboriginal women that there could have been more people at the table. However, when our leader brought forward the motion today, he said that he was very open to amendments. In that case, did I hear the hon. member suggest that we can add the Canadian Medical Association to the structure of that table? I think the leader said he was open to anything that would make it a better process, so I am asking the member if this is what she is suggesting.

Also, the member talked about a timeframe. The Supreme Court gave 12 months; the current government has done absolutely nothing to deal with the Supreme Court's ruling, and we are now moving into the third month of the year.

The bottom line is that there was time, and I think we can do it in that time. As well, I am glad to hear the hon. member suggesting an amendment to the motion. Does that mean she is supporting it?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think what the member heard was my conversation that 308 members of Parliament need to be engaged in this very important issue. We have a responsibility to have round tables in our ridings in order to have that conversation and put forward the representations of the citizens that we represent. As the member knows, committee structures are a part of the parliamentary process, but to limit the process to 12 people with very limited time and working within a very defined structure is perhaps not going to do justice to this very critical piece of legislative work that we need to do.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on the parliamentary secretary's speech. He said that the government would consult people via an online survey.

Does she think that is an appropriate way to consult people?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member again misheard me. I said 308 members of Parliament have a critical responsibility to engage with their constituents, to have round tables, to receive emails. Certainly the Internet could be part of it. We saw with the prostitution legislation that many thousands of Canadians engaged. That is one tool among the multiple tools that are needed, but predominantly it is the 308 members of Parliament who have the responsibility.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments with great interest. I heard that dealing with this issue was urgent, but I heard that we are moving too fast. I heard that we need to talk to many more people, but 308 is too many and too few all at the same time.

We have a responsibility to respond within a year. How are we going to respond to the Supreme Court within a year if we do not get to work immediately? Why can the member not add the names of the people she wants to be consulted as part of the process? What is preventing progress and contribution to the bill?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I really reflected on in my comments is that we have a timeline and a critical task. I also noted that it took four and a half years for Quebec to craft the legislation it thought was appropriate and over a year for the Supreme Court of Canada to render its decision after hearing the case. Committees absolutely are an important piece of this process, but many things must be done in order to ensure that we have included all the appropriate stakeholders and all the appropriate opinions and thoughts on this issue.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in today's debate on the way forward in responding to the recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of physician-assisted dying.

On February 6, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the Criminal Code provisions on physician-assisted dying are contrary to the charter. The court suspended the legal effect of its ruling for 12 months to give Parliament time to develop an appropriate response.

The government opposes our motion because we have committed to hearing from all perspectives on this issue. This consultation process would provide an opportunity for Canadians and stakeholders, such as physicians and nurses, disabled people, and patients' rights groups, to share their views and perspectives.

We cannot underestimate the importance of engaging all Canadians in this dialogue. It is hoped that everyone will work together so that we can create a regime that would meet the needs of those who are grievously ill and who want to die in order to escape intolerable pain, while at the same time protecting vulnerable individuals and affirming our shared value that all human beings, no matter their condition, have inherent dignity and worth.

We are, thankfully, not starting at zero. There is much that we already know about the risks that are inherent in the practice of physician-assisted dying, the types of safeguards that can help mitigate those risks, and how these practices can be monitored. Much of what we know was presented at the courts as evidence in the Carter litigation. I believe it could be helpful if we consider some of the filings of the trial judge. The trial judgment itself is full of relevant information about how these laws work where they exist.

This is definitely an issue upon which people can have differing views about what is appropriate or acceptable for a societal response, but we should all be striving to form a common understanding of the facts.

One important question that was raised many years ago was whether legalization of physician-assisted dying would have the unintended effect of impeding progress in improving the quality and availability of palliative care services.

With regard to palliative care, I would remind all members that in May 2014, this chamber overwhelmingly passed Motion No. 456, calling upon the federal government to establish a pan-Canadian palliative and end-of-life care strategy.

After examining the evidence from the jurisdictions that permit some form of physician-assisted dying, the trial judge in Carter found that palliative care services were not undermined in these places; in fact, in some places, more physicians now seem to have a better understanding of palliative care than they did before the legalization of physician-assisted dying.

While the court did not find that these improvements were the result of legalizing physician-assisted dying, it is nonetheless good news that palliative care can be improved alongside an assisted-dying regime. I think this will be important to bear in mind going forward.

Another concern that is sometimes expressed is that legalizing physician-assisted dying can have a negative impact upon the doctor-patient relationship, as some may come to fear their doctors once they are empowered to help end life.

Moving forward, we as a society must be mindful of this relationship. For example the trial judge found that, if a future law were carefully designed with appropriate safeguards, patients' trust in their physicians and physicians' commitment to their patients' well-being would not necessarily change for the worse. Furthermore, the risk of misconception and distrust may be counterbalanced by the possibility of enhanced trust arising from more open communications.

However, there does appear to be evidence that, in Canada, not all physicians are having honest conversations with patients about their prognosis and options at end of life to the degree we would hope.

Perhaps the prospect of legalizing physician-assisted dying presents us with an opportunity to help physicians improve their skill set in this area, for the good of all patients, not just those who would seek to have assistance to die.

The evidence from the Carter case also revealed interesting facts about the reasons people provide for seeking medically assisted death. I think most Canadians believe that those who seek assistance to die are suffering from intolerable physical pain. The media often describe cases involving horrific diseases that lead to painful and debilitating deaths.

The data that is collected from places where people can access assistance to die tells us a very different story. In fact, inadequate pain control is almost never a reason people seek assistance to die. On the contrary, almost all people who have received assistance wanted it because they were suffering from loss of physical autonomy, reduced ability to engage in activities that made their life enjoyable, feelings of loss of dignity, losing control of bodily functions, and feeling like a burden on family.

People are seeking to die, not because they are in physical pain, but because they are in emotional and psychological pain. It is important to know this if we strive to provide real options to Canadians at the end of life.

The data tells that, in every place where these practices are legal, the clear trend is increasing for numbers of people accessing assistance to die with each passing year. Even in places like Oregon, where the law has been in operation since 1997, the number of people seeking assistance to die continues to grow with each passing year.

The data reveals another interesting fact about the Oregon model. In Oregon only physician-assisted suicide is legal, and only for people who are terminally ill. The law permits a physician to write a prescription for a lethal dose of medication to a person with an illness that is reasonably expected to cause death within six months.

The data tell us that, every year, about one-third of the people who receive this prescription do not use it. Are people obtaining a lethal prescription when their wish to die is temporary or they are not entirely firm in their desire? On the other hand, some say that simply having the prescription and knowing it is available for use if one's situation becomes unbearable is in itself a way to ease their psychological suffering so that they can continue to live.

The data also shows that some people who receive the lethal prescriptions die more than two years later, even though according to the law, the prescription is only available to a person who is reasonably expected to die within six months. This fact suggests there are real challenges associated with physicians' ability to predict how close a person is to death.

Our challenge would be much more difficult without all this information. This information is available to us because every jurisdiction that legally regulates physician-assisted dying has a legal requirement for physicians who provide assistance to report that they have done so on some authority. In some cases, the relevant authority is the health department of the state; in other cases, it is a specially created commission. In all cases, the relevant authorities are required to compile and analyze data and to issue public reports on key facts, such as the kinds of medical conditions of the people who are aided to die.

This data is invaluable to Canada and no doubt to other countries that are grappling with these issues. Their reporting requirements also serve as an accountability measure, which is just as important. These are just some of the important facts we must all come to appreciate as we move forward with this conversation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to get the member's opinion on the idea of having the special committee established. We say the special committee in good part because we need to recognize that it actually affects more than one department. It goes beyond Justice; one could talk about Health and other departments. As opposed to trying to allocate it to a standing committee, we propose establishing a special committee.

When the government talks about reaching out and wanting to consult, there is nothing that prevents the special committee from going to different regions of our country or from being able to approach the different professionals and stakeholders.

I would suggest that it would have the potential to be very much all-encompassing, and most important, it would allow MPs to have that direct inclusivity, going through standing committees in different regions, possibly, and so forth, and to be able to reflect on their constituents and therefore Canadians. It just seems to be all that much more in terms of inclusiveness.

My question for the member is this. To what degree does he feel that consultation and coming up with the recommendations are important in resolving the Supreme Court decision?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly committees of members of Parliament will be struck, but the consultation envisioned yet not totally defined would certainly be much vaster than that of just a committee, whether it be health or whether it be justice.

The truly special committee that we envision in this consultation that affects the lives of many Canadians—most people with family members who have gone through this—would be a special committee of all Canadians with a vast and inclusive consultation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, although I did not hear any solutions in there.

He just talked about facts and what has happened elsewhere in the world. He did not talk about a concrete solution for the case before us now.

The Supreme Court just handed down a ruling, and Parliament has a year to respond. However, the member did not mention any solution that he or his government might have in mind to follow up. The decision came down in January 2015. One year brings us to January or February 2016, so we have to get going on this right away.

What kind of solutions does the member envision?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is very complex, and the solution is an inclusive consultation with all Canadians in a format that will enable everyone to participate.

Frankly, providing such a quick response to such a complex issue is as difficult as predicting when someone will die. Physicians in Oregon predict that a person's death will take place within six months when, in many cases, it happens two years later.

It is very complex, and the people in Oregon do not always have all the answers.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that a number of members of this House may have misunderstood some of the comments I made earlier, and I want to just clarify that I personally believe there is plenty of time for this House and this government to consult broadly with Canadians and respond with legislation within the timeframe set out by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I was, however, asked my opinion as a lawyer on whether a leave for extension would be a possibility. I certainly said that kind of application is always possible. However, it is the government's intention to consult broadly and to come back with legislation within the timeframe that the Supreme Court has set out.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I appreciate the hon. parliamentary secretary's comments.

As to the previous question about a snap solution to something so complicated that affects our lives, this is the life-ending moment of usually a dear person's life. As I mentioned in my speech, in May 2014 there was much support for the study of palliative care. The months or days leading up to the ultimate moment of death are just as important as the decision to end one's life, when it comes to the dignity of the person. Wrapped into the study as to how we are going to deal with the physician-assisted suicide, certainly we have to take into consideration the whole aspect of palliative care, which this House has looked upon very favourably.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I should say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

I rise today to speak to the opposition motion moved by the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, my colleague, the hon. member for Papineau. This motion has two main provisions: that the House recognize the Supreme Court ruling on physician-assisted dying and that a special committee of the House be appointed immediately to consult with experts and with Canadians and present a legislative framework on which legislation on physician-assisted dying can be based.

On February 6, 2015, the highest court in the country handed down an historic decision. The ruling indicated that paragraph 241(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada, stating that every one who aids or abets a person to commit suicide is guilty of an indictable offence, and section 14, stating that no person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, will be invalidated 12 months after the February 6, 2015, ruling. These measures violate the right to life, liberty and security of the person guaranteed under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

My parliamentary colleagues and I have a duty here. At our best, we write laws worthy of the people who elected us. Each one of us is aware of how emotionally charged this sensitive issue is, regardless of our personal opinion. This issue is both sensitive and complex. It is very difficult to set legal parameters that can apply to a wide range of unimaginable scenarios. I am supporting this motion because it calls on Parliament to face this challenge. We have 11 months left to come up with a solution, and we will have to get around a number of obstacles in our parliamentary schedule, including, of course, the election, which will interrupt the legislative work of the House this fall.

I invite my colleagues not to waste one second because we have an enormous task ahead of us. Canadians deserve a solution that will protect their rights and reflect their values. That is what we can deliver if we get to work right away and do our best. That is why we were elected and that is what Canadians deserve.

The medical field is evolving in Canada. One only need step inside a hospital to know that the aging population is putting more and more pressure on the system. The data confirm the fact that Canadians are living longer than ever, and the baby boomers have already started retiring. This new reality is a testament to the success of medicine. The new generation of retirees is essentially in excellent health. The geriatric wards of hospitals are overflowing, but the number of seniors flocking to recreation centres and yoga studios is also growing. The challenge of an aging population is the result of our success. This makes it no less of a challenge. A new generation of seniors is making itself known. They will live longer and their bodies will age differently because of medical innovations.

Once they were members of the flamboyant rock and roll generation and the largest cohort of workers in our history, and now more of them than ever before need medical care. That is quite natural; however, it shows that the reality of health care, especially health care for the elderly, is constantly evolving because of the people of that generation. Their physiological needs and their medical needs have changed. The anticipated aging of the population will inevitably lead to an increase in the number of people with cancer, for example, and other illnesses. This is the context for the debate on physician-assisted death and, more broadly, the future of palliative care in Canada.

As is the case for many of my colleagues and many Canadians who have been in similar situations in their lives, I thought about this when my mother died. She had to have an operation on her foot and the family asked her to agree to the operation. There were complications and she was told by her doctor that she had no choice but to have her leg amputated. Given her suffering, we told our dear mother that it was her decision to make. She immediately told the doctors that she wanted to be buried with both of her legs. It was her decision to put an end to the treatment.

I also experienced a similar situation with my children's adoptive grandmother, Olyve Pelletier, who was on dialysis. Shortly before Christmas, she brought in my children and all of her family to tell them that she was going to stop her dialysis treatment. These two people who are very dear to me were able to make that choice because justice allowed them to do so.

I understood from those experiences that our decisions regarding palliative care must be guided by the rights and wishes of seniors. We must make dying with dignity a priority and limit suffering as much as possible. What is more, that is precisely the instruction received from the court.

Canada is in desperate need of a good palliative care system. The health care system is not prepared for the massive generation I just mentioned, which will soon need access to this type of care. The cracks are already growing. Fewer than 30% of Canadian seniors currently have access to the care they need. A new strategy, a federal leadership and Canada-wide co-operation are absolutely necessary if we want to continue to be proud of having the best health care system in the world.

I cannot help but think of my experience at the Quebec National Assembly as we take on this noble yet colossal task. A few years ago, public discourse was constantly and convincingly changing in Quebec. As we are seeing in the rest of the country today, the tides had been turning for some time in favour of new measures surrounding and allowing physician-assisted death. The premier at the time, Jean Charest, created a select committee very similar to the one called for in the motion we are debating today in Parliament.

Under the Canadian Constitution, the federal Parliament is responsible for criminal law. According to the Criminal Code, euthanasia and assisted suicide are criminal acts. However, it is up to the provinces to administer justice and enforce criminal law.

I remind members that this debate has already taken place in the Quebec National Assembly. It was a non-partisan debate, and party lines never came into play. We are asking that these measures be taken here.

I also want to congratulate my former colleagues in the Quebec National Assembly, in particular the chair of the committee, Maryse Gaudreault, from the Liberal Party of Quebec, and Véronique Hivon, from the Parti Québécois, who was the co-chair of the committee.

Since an election is impending, the Supreme Court is calling on us to immediately study this issue, which is what the motion calls for as well.

I once again congratulate the member for Papineau, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, for having the courage to move this motion and to call on the House to immediately address this issue.

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

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

Having participated in National Assembly of Quebec debates for several years, he is certainly familiar with the select committee's work.

Does my colleague think that Parliament, as a legislative assembly, also has a responsibility, as stated in the motion, to strike a committee to study this matter and make recommendations to the government?

Committees do not have the power to draft bills, of course. However, they can make recommendations to the government.

What does he think of legislators making recommendations to the government, particularly with respect to the question the Supreme Court has given us?

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

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

As I said, I believe that this is an extremely important, complex and personal issue. It is important to do things this way, namely to have a committee and a nationwide debate. As he said, the committee will not be drafting the bill. However, it is important for the committee to hear from experts and individuals across the country so that we can come up with a bill quickly.

That is why we said in the motion that the government should not wait to start on this, because it has just 11 months left. We know the election is coming. We need to focus on this now and take a non-partisan approach to this debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more that we need a better palliative care system in this country. We have worked across party lines to discuss some of those things, and my colleagues on the other side have made some recommendations in that regard.

I have two questions. First, why would we rush to have a committee present its findings by the end of July, when we could take the time in an election year to study it more fully with a bit of an extension or to at least use the full 12 months the Supreme Court has granted?

I am getting a fair bit of communication from my constituents, and just this morning, I received a letter from a doctor in my riding who asked that as we consider this issue:

...we establish policies that allow physicians to opt out of participation in activities and procedures that go against their conscience, especially when it concerns acts that would result in ending a person's life. Physicians should not be required to refer for or participate in such acts.

I am wondering if my colleague would agree that this would be a good thing to try to work into any proposed legislation Parliament comes up with.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague had two questions.

First, he talked about why there is a rush to do this. It is quite simple. The Supreme Court has said that Parliament has 12 months to do something, so why do we not start right now? The Supreme Court is not aware of the parliamentary agenda. It knows that in 12 months we are allowed to do our job. We can meet people to discuss the issue and have debates. I can also say that we are not going to start from scratch, because the Quebec legislature already had a debate like this, so why do we not use that?

Second, he talked about the letter he received from the doctor. We are MPs, but we would like to invite people, as we always do, to explain to us the difficulties in each area: health, finance, and everything. They would help us draw up legislation that will go across Canada and that will prevent such things.