Debates of Feb. 24th, 2015

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address both Parliament, and of course the country, on this issue.

The Supreme Court has spoken. The Supreme Court, in a very declarative, very clear way has asked Parliament, not the government or a minister but all of us as parliamentarians, to be seized of this issue and to deliver a response quickly back to Canadians waiting for answers and direction.

This is extraordinarily important. We have a duty to respond. I understand and we all appreciate the complexity of this issue and the sensitivities around this issue. However, we also have a responsibility to make sure that we do not simply put this off for a very simple reason: people are suffering. The longer we take to make a decision on this, the longer some people's suffering will deepen and extend. As well, those who wish to seek to provide assistance to people are being held in abeyance. Their capacity to act as caregivers is limited by our inaction. We have a responsibility not to ask for a deferral while we do no work and not to put off until tomorrow what must be debated and decided today.

When hon. members stand up in this House and read emails and correspondence from their ridings, it shows us that Canadians are eager to contribute. That is good. It is very good.

We need to respond quickly, because waiting until after the next election will have the next Parliament starting flat-footed, and more extensions and delays will be required. That is just unfair.

The Supreme Court understands fully what our electoral cycle is. It understands entirely what our responsibilities are, and it has given us these responsibilities.

We are also lucky. The province of Quebec, the National Assembly, has given us context and guidance and a body of evidence from which to act. That is important, because it means that there is legislative precedence. There is also, from that process, a spirit of nonpartisanship that I think we can embrace and move forward with. I would like to thank the National Assembly and the people of Quebec for giving that gift to the rest of Canada as we consider this very difficult issue.

It is equally important to speak of the principles which need to frame our conversation around this issue. People with disabilities are also looking to this Parliament to protect their dignity, their charter rights, and their existence as part of the Canadian community.

Whatever decisions we make, they will not just be about the ease of suffering but also about making sure that charter rights and people's proper place in our democracy is protected and included in this process.

While we talk about the parliamentary process, the root of that word being “speaking”, it is really a process about listening. We need to listen to the courts. We need to listen to Canadians, then we have to take on the duties we have sworn an oath to and act. We have to act swiftly.

As I said, this is an issue that defines many of our lives. We have heard from both sides of the House about personal experience in carrying people towards the end of life and carrying them beyond. We have all had that, in my life included. As I sat with my mother and watched her live out her final days in suffering, seeking to ease the pain of her children, as all good mothers do, there was no capacity, there was no framework, to have a rational adult conversation with loving members of a family solving a crisis that is present in many households, too many households, today.

I urge members in this House not to look towards the politics of this event, not to look to the shortcomings of a parliamentary system that sometimes does not give us the space or the time to deal with these issues, but to open their hearts to this issue, to open their minds to this issue, to listen to the way people have described this phenomenon we are now charged with resolving, and to please support this motion. Make it a better a motion. Make it as nonpartisan as possible. Include those groups whose voices need to be heard on this issue. Above all, act to end the suffering, act to provide clarity, and act to provide a swift response to the Supreme Court.

Now is not the time to dither. It is not the time to debate between the libertarian values or the humanitarian values that are present in this conversation. Rather, sit down with Canadians, sit down with members of our ridings, sit down as parliamentarians, and come up with an answer Canada can be proud of.

We have a basis from which to act. We have a compelling set of arguments presented to us by the Supreme Court. We have to act.

I would ask all members to support the motion being presented to us by our leader today, to move forward together to resolve this issue as Canadians in a compassionate way, in a principled way, and above all, to act immediately to end suffering for those whose only option is to wait for us to respond.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening all morning to the comments on this topic, and all of us are treating this issue with the dignity it deserves.

My question is a procedural one, and the member is relatively new here, so I will bear that in mind. The leader of the Liberal Party who put the motion forward said today that this is not about legislation, but rather about studying the issues surrounding doctor-assisted death.

The report by the committee is deemed to be reported back to the House by the end of July, but an election is to be held on October 19, so the House will not sit until that is over. The message I am hearing is that we would have this resolved before the election, but in fact we are not debating legislation. This is not about legislation; it is about studying the issue.

How can a decision be made on the motion by the House prior to the election?

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

Mr. Speaker, the deadline is next February and between now and February there will be an election. The motion today proposes that we unlock a process and move it forward. It would start with consulting widely with Canadians and bringing forward the necessary evidence from all interested parties so that the executive branch of government would have the context and the basis and the information necessary to act and to present legislation, which the new Parliament, if it has to, would respond to and act on in time to meet the Supreme Court deadline.

The reason it is so critical to get moving on this issue it that it requires, above all, a new approach by Parliament. It requires Parliament to reach out to more Canadians and embrace the complexity and the compassion that is being asked of us. To wait until the next Parliament, and to pretend that we cannot act outside of Parliament as parliamentarians, would really limit our understanding of democracy and the parliamentary system. We have the capacity to act. The motion sets the first stage of that procedure. We can follow from there with good advice from Canadians.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have had experience in my life working with teams. I have managed construction teams, and I have worked in all kinds of fields. Every time we saw that there was a lot of work to do, we always said that we had to get started right away because we had a lot to do. We never said that we would start tomorrow or later. It is hard to reconcile that with the government's position. I think the only thing that explains this way of thinking is that the government is afraid to debate the subject.

The Conservatives know that they are unable to take any non-partisan action and do something like what Quebec did, with two different governments, over a period of four and a half years, with four different political parties. It is too much for them, and they are even unable to fathom it. I would like my colleague to speak more about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that it is disappointing to see complexity raised as an issue and a barrier by a party that continually invokes closure on complex issues.

We have the capacity and the responsibility to act together. The courts have asked us to do that. Canadians ask us to do that, and they send us to this chamber to do just that. On an issue like this, where there is quite clearly such a rich treasure trove of personal experience, it is perhaps the one issue that we can and should act quickly on.

I agree with the member's comments. This is so important that we need to stop and not do something so that we can understand how to do it more slowly and respond more quickly is the most complicated response to urgency that I have ever heard in my life.

I think we have a responsibility to govern here as parliamentarians. We have a responsibility to reach out across the aisle, to reach out across our life experience, to listen, to include, and to move forward.

As I said, every day this is delayed, we are extending someone's suffering. Every day this issue is undefined by Parliament, we sow confusion and distrust among those people whose rights need to be protected by new legislation.

Now is the time to act. Now is the time to govern. Now is the time to come together to give Canadians an answer, as the Supreme Court has asked of us.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kootenay—Columbia, with whom I have the honour of working on the justice committee. It is also an honour to know him as a former RCMP officer. I have a tremendous amount of respect for his thoughts on a number of justice issues, and he does a fantastic job on our committee.

It is also my pleasure and honour to speak today to the Liberal supply day motion. To be frank, I appreciate today's motion. We have had a number of supply day motions recently that have been less about what Parliament should be engaged in, in terms of discussion between parliamentarians. However, this one certainly goes to that point, and I do appreciate it. I also believe that this is a non-partisan issue, and the discussion has been very respectful, as it should be, on this particular tough issue.

I am going to spend most of my time talking about the procedural issues. In my view, this is a motion to deal with procedure on a policy issue. The Liberal motion today puts out a direction for, or a way of tackling, the issue. It recommends that this be done through a special committee. The Liberals have highlighted the membership of the committee, which would be roughly 60% Conservative, 30% NDP, and 10% Liberal. I made the point earlier about how the committee structure now is for a standing committee of 10 members. This would be for 12, which is the old way of doing things. It really does not matter. It is still a percentage. The new way would give the Liberal Party a little more presence on committees, with two fewer opposition members there, but that is what the Liberals have chosen to present today.

Here is why I do not think this is the right approach to this very important issue. I have been here nine years and have sat on a number of committees. I have been the chair of the justice committee for the last couple of years. In my view, the best use of time at committee for members of Parliament is to deal with actual legislation. That is when there are words on paper about the direction of the government or a member, depending on the type of bill. The wording is there, the clauses that we are dealing with are there, and the changes are all there.

Dealing with legislation is a better use of members' time. I have been on a number of committees that do studies, and they are interesting. Sometimes they are useful, and sometimes they are not. This particular item needs a very broad consultation before it goes to committee.

The committee that the Liberals are highlighting in today's motion is would be a special committee that would not deal with an actual piece of legislation. The Liberals are saying, let us study it and have it back by July 31. I assume that out of that study, they are thinking that there would be a piece of legislation that would come after the election. The public still would not know what Parliament's direction would be, based on the study that would be done by July. It would be an overview of the issues and a number of questions might be asked. There may be directions and recommendations coming out of it, but there would be no piece of actual legislation. Of course, there are a number of options that will be available to Parliament, including not doing anything. That is one of the options.

The motion would not really advance the issue to a point where people would think that by July, they will have an answer on where the Government of Canada and Parliament of Canada are going on this particular issue. Based on today's motion, that would absolutely not be the case.

It would have recommendations. No committee study can compel the government to do anything. That is standard, whether it is a standing committee or a special committee. A study cannot compel the government of the day to do anything. Even if, God forbid, after October 19, there is a change in government, the study could not compel that next government to do anything at all.

Today's motion does not do what I think the Liberal Party thinks it would do and wants to present it as doing. It is a reasonable approach, and I am not saying that what the Liberals are doing is wrong. I do not think it is what the public is anticipating based on this particular motion.

The other issue is that when I consider broad consultation, I think of a variety of different groups. At present when we call witnesses to committees, as chair of the committee I try to achieve a balance. We get submissions from all parties. Normally we try to accommodate everyone's witnesses, and that has happened 99% of the time. On some occasions, we cannot accommodate everyone. Then the witness list is based on the size of the committee membership. Approximately 50% of the witnesses then would be from the Conservatives; approximately 40% from the NDP, the official opposition; and approximately 10% or so from the Liberal Party.

The record of the justice committee shows that the number of witnesses from the Conservatives is much less, maybe 45%, and that witnesses from other parties fill in that space. We deal very little there with legislation that is a matter of life or death. If we do something right, it is great. If we do something wrong, normally we can change it, or the next government changes the policy or legislation to improve it or to make changes.

The hardest vote for me thus far has been when we commit the men and women of our armed services to foreign conflicts, whether in Afghanistan or to what is going on in the Middle East right now, because we know there is the potential for a Canadian to die. In this case that is what it is all about, someone having the option to proceed in that manner.

The consultation with Canadians needs to be broader than the witnesses we pick to come to committee. There is a whole basket of opportunities. We should all be able to contribute those we consider to be experts. There are experts in this area who have different opinions in their particular fields, but there needs to be a broader way of consulting the public.

To my view, and I might be a bit biased, I think this issue should go to the justice committee and, based on the broad consultation at committee, the government should bring forward a piece of legislation. The justice committee, in its current form, has been working very well on a number of very difficult files, including the prostitution bill. The prostitution bill only really affected a small portion of the population, but this affects everyone, so we need a broader approach.

I am not supporting the motion today, because the process gives a false image that we will have legislation by July. The leader of the third party, the mover of the motion today, indicated that this does not create legislation. He said that directly to the House, that it is a study, a consultation. I do not disagree with him that we need broad consultation. I am not sure that the committee structure in the House of Commons is the appropriate structure to use to get that consultation, to develop legislation that should go to the standing committee process and result in witnesses being called to talk about actual legislation that will be developed.

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

Mr. Speaker, a couple of things stand out in the arguments being presented by the government.

The government's logic in its first argument seems to be that we cannot finish by July, so we should not even get started. That does not seem to be a good argument to my way of thinking. We know, for example, that government members will be in a majority on this committee, so if they decide that July is too soon, they can use their majority to extend the deadline to mid-August or whatever they want, since they will be the majority party on the committee.

Second, the member is right in saying that there will probably not be legislation before the next election. We understand that. However, would the hearings that would be taking place around this issue not help inform any debate that might occur on this issue during an election campaign? Do we not want informed election campaigns in this country?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, now we know why this motion is here: they think this is an election issue. That is what the member just asked me. He asked if this should be in the debate during an election.

In my view, this is not an election issue and should not be an election issue. This is a very personal family issue that needs proper policy discussion. It is not an election issue.

We have not said today on this side that we are not open to broad public consultations. There are questions. For example, is the individual considering the option of assisted death by a doctor the only one to decide? Does a spouse decide, or a father or mother if it is a child? Who decides? Does one doctor do it? Do doctors have the right to refuse? Is there a panel to determine whether the person is of sound mind to make the decision? All these questions need to be addressed.

My view is that every Canadian should have an opportunity for input on what the answers are and what the questions should be. A parliamentary committee is not broad enough to be able to do that job.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, in which I heard him talk many times about the importance of a broad consultation—something I can only agree with, as long as a broad consultation does not mean an Internet survey.

The question I would like to ask is this: with a topic as important and sensitive as this, does he not think that the approach taken should be parlimentarian rather than governmental, so that the next government, regardless of its political affiliation, is bound to it, if only ethically?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. He was making my point, in a sense, by saying that broad consultation includes people from all the opposition parties and members, including our independent members, on what questions should be asked and what information is needed.

My colleague used one example, and everyone is hanging their hat on it. It was one piece. When we do our consultations on any topic, we use focus groups, we go to experts, we ask our constituents. It is a broad mix. It is a bigger basket. We need a really big basket.

My mother-in-law had cancer of the lung. She went through very serious surgery. She went on a program as a test case with a drug company. Fortunately for our family, she survived and has been cancer free for over a decade. Many of her friends who were in the same program did not. We had called the priest to come to give her last rites at the hospital. We could have made some different decisions, but those decisions were not made.

Every family should have an opportunity to comment on this matter. My mother-in-law should have an opportunity to have input on it.

That is why the consultations need to be broad.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today's debate in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Carter, which found two Criminal Code provisions prohibiting physician-assisted death to be unconstitutional and provided one year to Parliament, to February 5, 2016, to develop its response.

Physician-assisted death raises complex ethical, legal, and medical issues. Many of these issues involve competing interests and values, such as preservation of human life, individual autonomy, the protection of vulnerable individuals and groups, and human dignity and suffering. End-of-life decisions are very personal and sensitive questions for many Canadians, with deeply held beliefs on both sides of the issue and far-reaching implications for our society as a whole.

At this early stage of the debate, I believe the experience and evidence from foreign jurisdictions that have implemented permissive regimes by regulating euthanasia, assisted death, or both, are invaluable in providing input to our discussion, including with respect to eligibility criteria or procedural safeguards to protect vulnerable individuals from unwarranted deaths.

In the United States, for instance, there are only three states that provide access to physician-assisted death: Oregon, since 1997; Washington, since 2008; and Vermont, since 2013. Their legislative schemes all allow terminally ill patients to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of a lethal dose of medication prescribed by a physician, although presence of the physician is not required during the self-administration of the medication.

Eligibility criteria for making such a request include that the patient be diagnosed with a terminal illness, which is defined as “an incurable and irreversible disease which would, within a reasonable medical judgment, result in death within six months”; that the patient be a competent adult, over the age of 18, able to make and communicate health care decisions; that oral and written requests be submitted to the attending physician; and that the oral request be reiterated no less than 15 days after the initial demand.

The legislation also provides procedural safeguards that address the physician's responsibilities when granting such requests, including confirming that the patient is terminally ill; is capable of making a voluntary and uncoerced decision; has been duly informed of the diagnosis, prognosis, potential risks, and alternative options to the end-of-life medication; and has been referred to a second physician to confirm the diagnosis and other eligibility criteria.

Attending physicians must also refer patients for counselling when they may be suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder impairing their judgement.

In the U.S. state approach, as is the case in all permissive regimes, reporting requirements have also been enacted. In the three American states, physicians are required to report to health departments further to prescribing the lethal dose of medication. This process allows for relevant information on the implementation of the laws to be gathered, analyzed, and reported to the public. There is no question that such information and data will be invaluable to our Canadian discussion as we delve deeper into this societal debate.

In terms of enforcement provisions, although offences for falsifying and coercing patients have been enacted in the states of Washington and Oregon, it appears that no specific enforcement mechanism has been put in place to assess physicians' compliance with the applicable rules and safeguards.

If we now look at European regimes, which currently allow both assisted suicide and euthanasia, we will notice subtle differences.

By contrast to the U.S. state approach, the European countries, specifically Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, have broader laws that permit euthanasia or assisted suicide to be administered to a person who is suffering unbearably, either physically or psychologically, from an incurable medical condition, regardless of any proximity to death.

Since 2002, in Belgium adult patients or emancipated minors who are in a “...medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated, resulting from a serious and incurable disorder caused by illness or accident” can request to be euthanized.

Patients must be legally competent and conscious at the time of the request, and their demand must be voluntary, repeated, and not result from external pressure. Procedural safeguards in place are similar to the ones in the three states in the United States, but also include the requirement to consult with a psychiatrist if the patient is not expected to die in the near future.

The legislation in Belgium was amended in 2014 and now allows euthanasia to be practised on children of any age if they are in constant and unbearable suffering that cannot be alleviated and are likely to die in the short term. In those very sensitive cases, an explicit request must be made and parental consent must be granted.

Once euthanasia has been performed, physicians must submit a detailed report to the Federal Control and Evaluation Commission, a panel of 16 experts that determines whether euthanasia was practised in accordance with the law and that has to turn cases involving non-compliance over to the Public Prosecution Service.

In the case of the Netherlands, although euthanasia and assisted suicide are both offences under the Dutch penal code, the Termination of Life and Assisted Suicide Act came into force in 2002, providing an exemption from criminal liability for physicians who perform such practices if they report their actions and comply with the due care criteria included in the act. The criteria are even broader in this jurisdiction, since patients are eligible to request that their life be terminated if they endure “...unbearable physical or psychological suffering with no prospect of improvement”, regardless of how close they may be to death.

Competent and informed adults are eligible to receive such assistance, but so too are children between the ages of 12 and 16 if their parents consent to the request, as well as minors between the ages of 16 and 18 if they consult with their parents prior to requesting euthanasia.

Here again, regional review committees are responsible for ensuring that physicians comply with the due care criteria provided in the law, and in the case of non-compliance with the safeguard measures, they must turn the case over to the Public Prosecution Service.

Most European laws also allow euthanasia of mentally incompetent individuals, such as patients suffering from dementia, when they have written, while they were still competent, advance directives requesting euthanasia under certain circumstances.

In all permissive regimes, physicians have the right to refuse to provide assistance in dying or to perform euthanasia and have at times refused to do so when there was treatment capable of addressing the suffering of the patient.

In conclusion, these are just a few examples of the manifold dimensions of this issue that will require close scrutiny and in-depth discussions over the next months.

The government opposes the motion to appoint a parliamentary committee to consult on a legislative framework and response to the Carter decision and instead plans to engage with Canadians, the provinces and territories, the medical profession, and the many affected groups in a national conversation on these very important issues.

This debate is one that concerns each of us individually, as well as all of us collectively. It speaks to our shared values and our responsibilities to protect the most vulnerable in our collective aspirations as a society.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if there is any rationale for actually passing the motion today and moving on this important study, it is the speech that was just given by the member. What we just heard from the member was some important insight as to what was happening comparatively on this subject in both the United States and Europe. That is exactly and precisely the kind of information, front-line experience that should be brought to bear in a special committee.

A special committee, by the way, which O'Brien and Bosc contemplates especially this kind of study, is:

Every special committee is established by an order of reference of the House. The motion usually defines its mandate and may include other provisions covering its powers...

It goes on to say:

Unlike legislative committees...they are not usually charged with the study of a bill...but rather with inquiring into a matter to which the House attaches particular importance.

That is why the motion has been brought here.

For the life of me and for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians right now who are touched with this issue, I think people are asking why the government cannot come to its senses and see that we need to get started on this, particularly, because we have a 12-month window within which to bring forward a proper legislative response, which would build upon our own personal and professional experiences.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member basically said what I was going to say. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who will be affected by the decision made by the Supreme Court—not hundreds, not even thousands, but hundreds of thousands—and a committee will never be able to hear from all of them.

We are going to move forward with extremely broad consultations with all Canadians, over a long period of time, to ensure we hear from every Canadian affected by this Supreme Court decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was very thoughtful. I concur with my colleague from Ottawa South that it underscores the need to act urgently on this issue because we want to protect vulnerable groups. In fact, all individuals are vulnerable when facing death. We need to have protections and we need to have a good discussion about this.

What I would like to know from the member is this. Why would having a parliamentary committee made up of legislators who would eventually be voting on legislation be mutually exclusive from having broad public consultations?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem I see with an assigned committee is that it can only hear so many people in a period of time. It is impossible for that committee to hear from the broad expanse of Canadians who want to have input into this.

The problem is, what do we do? Do we exclude tens of thousands of Canadians who want to have some input into this? What is the pecking order? That is the problem with the motion. There will be a pecking order, and there should never be one.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to mix apples with oranges, but when we look at Bill C-51, the Conservatives may limit expert testimony on the anti-terror bill. They may want to limit the number of experts. Canadians want to know more about it and experts want to get involved. In this case, the Conservatives want to shut down the debate.

In the other case, it seems the Conservatives want to open the debate up to 33 million people and they want to take two years if it is possible. However, for the anti-terrorism bill, which Canadians are very concerned about it, they are saying no, that they do not want to hear from them. The Conservatives have the answer.

I would like to hear his comments, especially since his former job was a police officer in the justice system. As a justice person, he should be able to give me a good answer on this.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, comparing Bill C-51 with Canada v. Carter is a real stretch, but I will accept that 82% of people who have responded with regard to Bill C-51 are in favour of what our government is doing, and that is pretty significant to me.

With regard to Canada v. Carter, the fact is that this is very personal, well beyond something a police officer should look at. This is about human life. This is about a decision between people and their physicians as to whether they believe they should live or die.

We need to have broad consultation on this to ensure that we get it right, because we need to get this right. I believe the best way to move forward is with extreme broad consultation, which our government will propose and move forward with.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

I have the pleasure of speaking to this difficult subject because I think it is an extremely important one, not just for me, but for many Canadians.

I realize this is primarily a debate about process, but since my position is already on the record, I will start briefly with that point.

I was part of the minority who voted in favour of the Bloc Québécois bill a few years ago. Naturally, I am in favour of the Supreme Court decision.

I think I could say that perhaps I have a libertarian streak in me, because I always favour the right of individuals to make their own choices if it does not hurt other individuals.

I was in favour of the right of gay couples to make their free choice to marry because it certainly did not impact my marriage negatively by one iota. I am in favour of the right of a woman to wear a niqab at a citizenship ceremony if that is indeed her religious belief. I am in favour of a women's right to choose. I am in favour of this decision by the Supreme Court, although I would like to see in its implementation a great deal of attention paid to true consent and a great deal of attention paid as well to expanding our palliative care system, because the stronger that system, the fewer people will be obliged to take this decision.

I understand that while this is my view, Canada is a diverse country. My riding of Markham is particularly diverse, having been declared by Statistics Canada to be the most diverse city in the country. I understand that not all Canadians will agree with me, and I certainly respect their right to a different opinion for religious reasons or other reasons.

I was born in Quebec. Up to now, I spent most of my life in Quebec. I must say, as a former Quebecker, that I am extremely proud of the measure implemented by the National Assembly of Quebec. It truly took courage for the MNAs to act on this difficult issue; they put their partisanship and even their personal ideology aside. They formed a committee. They heard a number of witnesses and, at the end of the day, they reached not only a consensus, but a unanimous decision.

Therefore, what I am proposing to the chamber and my fellow federal parliamentarians is that we show similar courage that was shown by our provincial counterparts in Quebec. Indeed, it was more difficult for them because they acted before the Supreme Court decision. We will be acting after the Supreme Court decision, so in that sense the parameters or the guiding rules have already been laid down for us.

Federal parliamentarians have often been slow or weak in dealing with these difficult moral questions and they have been left to a legal void. We should do our jobs for Canadians to take part in the debate on these difficult issues for the sake of Canadians and we should not be obsessed with our own personal ideology or partisan issues. That is what was done in Quebec and we, in this Parliament, should be willing to do no less.

I also believe it is in all of our interests to engage in such a process as we in the Liberal Party have proposed, whatever our personal views on this matter. Let us, for example, suppose that a group is opposed to the Supreme Court decision. If there is a committee and witnesses are called, those groups will be allowed to make representations to make the interpretation of the law narrow, to ensure consent is real, to ensure everything is done to increase palliative care. On some of these issues, I have already indicated that I agree.

That side will have an opportunity to make representations, but absent such a committee, absent such a process, we will be in a legal void, in which anything can happen and the people on that side of the debate may not have any influence at all on what the outcome is. Similarly, those on the other side who favour the Supreme Court decision, they too will have an opportunity to make their cases known, to present evidence and will then have an impact on the ultimate decision.

Quebec, in some ways, is more homogeneous than Canada, so I would not anticipate a unanimous decision on this issue by the federal Parliament, certainly not before the next election. However, it is incumbent on us to do our job for Canadians, to do as our Quebec counterparts did, which is to put aside our partisan inclinations and personal beliefs and get down to the very difficult, arduous work of listening to Canadians, hearing witnesses, debating and debating until we come up with a position that will not necessarily satisfy everybody, but which, one would hope, will command a large consensus in this place.

To put it briefly, we federal parliamentarians should do what we were elected to do. We should work on behalf of Canadians on a very difficult issue and follow the spirit of our counterparts in the Quebec national assembly.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his account of how the National Assembly, or the MNAs proceeded unanimously after much consultation. They reached a remarkable consensus on end-of-life care.

I want to remind the House that Ms. Lalonde, who was a member here—she passed away, unfortunately—championed this issue in the House for many months. This prompted a lengthy debate that ended with the defeat of her motion on dying with dignity. She was a trailblazer on this issue. She invited several witnesses, both from the medical profession and the social sciences, and from various former political parties. As a result, she had an exceptional wealth of knowledge. She had amassed extraordinary information.

I would say to the hon. member that since it was the Bloc Québécois that led this debate, I was a bit surprised that it was not invited to contribute to the motion or at least to pass on all the knowledge it gained at this committee and share it with everyone else.

I will close with my second point. The broad consensus achieved in Quebec must not be altered or challenged by a new Canada-wide committee that would come to a different conclusion. I believe that the debate in Quebec came to an almost unanimous conclusion and has now closed. When it comes to Quebec, that must be the policy.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks. As I said, I voted in favour of the Bloc's bill. The Leader of the Liberal Party said that he was open with respect to the composition of the proposed committee. It is not the composition of the committee that is the key point, but rather the decision to create such a committee. In my view, Quebec is a model for us. I would not propose changing the decisions made by Quebeckers. I would propose doing what Quebec did, but across Canada.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for appreciating what Quebec has achieved. I would like him to talk about the fact that the difference is that, in Quebec, despite the fact that there were four political parties involved, none had a moral right-wing base that precluded them from expressing themselves, unlike our friends on the other side who must constantly weigh everything they say, and who cannot really express themselves and say something that is sensible or moderate.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I understood the member, I completely agree with what he said about the fact that all parties should be included. That is the challenge we are facing. Will the Conservative members who form the government support the motion? If not, we will not have a committee, because they form the government. However, as I said, I hope that most members will have the courage to take action and to do what is right for all Canadians.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is rare for a motion to contain its own purpose and justification as clearly as the motion before us today.

The motion moved by the Liberal leader, the member for Papineau, calls for a special House committee to be appointed to consider the February 6, 2015 ruling of the Supreme Court, which stated that in certain specific circumstances, a prohibition on physician-assisted death violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court gave Parliament 12 months to amend the law accordingly. This means that a new legal framework must be put in place by February 6, 2016, at the latest, or else physician-assisted death will become legal, without the necessary guidelines and parameters set out in legislation. As a result of the summer recess and the upcoming general election, we have just 12 weeks of sitting time before February 6, 2016.

Canadians expect parliamentarians to fulfill their responsibility as legislators and hold this important discussion in a calm and reasoned way, rather than in haste. That is why we need to get started on this right now. This 12-member committee, including seven government members, four official opposition members and one Liberal Party member, should begin its work in March and report to the House no later than July 31, 2015.

That would give the committee time to properly consult legal, medical and other experts, as well as the general public. The committee would be able to travel both within and outside Canada, accompanied by the necessary staff. It would be able to make recommendations on how to give effect to the Supreme Court's decision with a view to establishing a legal framework that is consistent with the Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canadians' priorities.

Let us summarize the court's decision. Right now, under section 241(b) of the Criminal Code, anyone who aids or abets a person to commit suicide commits a criminal offence. Under section 14 of the Criminal Code, no person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him. Together, these provisions prohibit Canadians from providing or receiving assistance in dying.

It is precisely these provisions—section 241(b) and section 14 of the Criminal Code—that the Supreme Court has indicated violate section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

The prohibitions unjustifiably violate section 7 of the charter in three ways, according to the court. First, they violate the right to life by forcing some people to commit suicide early out of fear of incapacity. Second, they violate the right to liberty by denying people the right to make decisions on their own bodily integrity and medical care. Third, they violate the security of a person by leaving people to endure intolerable suffering.

The court was very clear about the legislator's duty.

It writes:

It is for Parliament and the provincial legislatures to respond, should they so choose, set out in these reasons.

The court describes these parameters in paragraph 127 as follows:

…[physician-assisted dying applies only to] a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life; and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition…that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.

The parameters are there: a competent adult person who clearly consents and who has a grievous and irremediable medical condition causing enduring and intolerable suffering.

The court also gives parliamentarians the responsibility of establishing how the charter rights of patients and physicians will be reconciled and notes that a physician's decision to participate in assisted dying is a matter of conscience.

The court clearly stated that the task of setting these parameters fell to both levels of government, since both the Criminal Code and health are constitutional jurisdictions.

Federal MPs have responsibilities here. We cannot hide from it. The judges did their work, and now it is our turn to do ours. We need to get started right away.

The judges are not the only ones reminding us of our responsibilities. The Canadian Medical Association wants the law to clearly lay down the legal framework within which a doctor can participate in physician-assisted dying, and the association has emphasized the importance of improving palliative care in Canada. It issued a news release about that today and expressed support for the motion by the member for Papineau. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities wants the law to establish clear guidelines to prevent abuses. Canadians in general want the best possible legislative framework.

There is no doubt that medical aid in dying is a complex and highly emotional issue, but if legislators had to resolve only simple problems, that would be too easy. It is our role to take a close look at public policy issues no matter how difficult they are.

That is why it makes no sense that the Conservative government announced its intention to vote against the motion by the member for Papineau. I would ask my Conservative colleagues to reconsider that decision. The government says that it would rather undertake a different consultation process, but it did not provide any details. That seems like a cop-out.

Why would our Conservative colleagues lack such courage? After all, the special committee we are calling for could draw on a considerable number of studies, insights, foreign examples, and expertise, including the legislative work done by our colleague from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia and by our Senate colleagues.

This committee would benefit especially from the endless goodwill of Canadians. They would all support us throughout this process. We could move forward with confidence.

Just look at what was accomplished by our colleagues at the National Assembly of Quebec. Following an exemplary non-partisan process, they ended up voting together on legislation on physician-assisted death that can be used as a benchmark for establishing what works at the federal level.

In sum, because Parliament has limited time to respond to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision to strike down the ban on physician-assisted death, in order to thoroughly and comprehensively consult with Canadians and experts on this complex and emotional issue, this House must act responsibly by immediately striking a special committee of the House.

This committee would immediately begin consulting with Canadians and experts on strengthening end-of-life care and support, including palliative care, with the aim to have enacted a charter-compliant legal framework before February 6, 2016.

That is what Canadians expect from us, their members of Parliament. That is what they deserve to get from us. That is why we must vote in favour of the motion moved by the hon. member for Papineau.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being a couple of minutes before statements by members, we will get started with that and allow ourselves a bit of time.

The hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville will have five minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on this motion, likely just after question period.

Rotary Club of Mississauga-City Centre

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to join the Rotary Club of Mississauga-City Centre on February 15 for a special ceremony celebrating Canada's national flag and the one-year anniversary of the extending seniors' horizon program, which offers training to seniors on how to use modern communication technologies and social media.

It is common for seniors to feel isolated, and that is especially true for immigrant seniors. Extending seniors' horizon allows seniors to lessen their feelings of isolation by communicating with their friends and families, often very far away. I have had the privilege of meeting happy seniors who participate in this program. Our government's funding has allowed them to purchase equipment used in special training sessions.

I applaud the Rotary Club of Mississauga-City Centre for this excellent initiative, led by Tim Iqbal, and the work of the volunteers for extending seniors' horizon. Their work is greatly appreciated. I wish the Rotarians in Mississauga, Canada, and around the world congratulations on the Rotary's 110th anniversary.