House of Commons Hansard #178 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was anti-semitism.

Topics

A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting the main estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 2016, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.

Main Estimates, 2015-16Routine Proceedings

3 p.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka Ontario

Conservative

Tony Clement ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board

I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor General signed by his own hand.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

When we started statements by members, there were five minutes for questions and comments for the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I fully support the Liberal Party's motion. It is a good idea to get the process started as soon as possible.

Does the member think it would be a good idea to invite representatives of the smaller parties and independents to participate?

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Mr. Speaker, the point of consultation is to get the broadest perspective possible.

The makeup of the committee is therefore something that the Liberals are prepared to take a very close look at with our hon. colleague. The Liberal Party leader, the member for Papineau, actually made that clear in his speech. There is no problem in that regard.

The problem might be our friends across the way, who seem unwilling to participate and unable to clarify what kind of consultation process they have in mind, and that sure seems like a cop-out.

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is in regard to the need for having a special committee versus going to a standing committee that already exists. When we look at the issue, we see that one of the concerns is that inputs can come from many different aspects, whether they be the department of health, justice, or finance. It is important that it be a special committee and, in fact if done properly, that would be a very comprehensive approach to dealing with this in terms of consultations and invitations of people who would be able to participate.

Maybe the member could add some further comment to that aspect.

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave the answer in the question. He gave all the reasons why we need a special committee.

However, I would add another point. If the government wanted to use an existing committee, it would have done that. In the agenda of committees, it would be clear that one of them would focus on this important task, and we know that is not the case. In fact, the government is trying to dodge the issue, to speak about it as little as possible, and we know why. It is because the government members are divided. We just have heard the S. O. 31 from our colleague from Vegreville—Wainwright, who called the Supreme Court lawless because of its decisions. They are awfully divided over there, and that is why they do not want to have this open and needed discussion with Canadians, and a non-partisan one.

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask a question of my hon. colleague. Should the government continue to sit on the sidelines with this issue and not take proper action and given that the courts have said that this clause will be removed in early February, does the member see the possibility of harm for the most vulnerable, should we not have a strong and clear framework of protection?

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Mr. Speaker, that is the risk. Indeed, my colleague is right. The court said that this will be legal on February 6, 2016. However, I would have a lot of concerns if no parameters are clarified by the law, and I am not alone. All of the disability associations and physician associations have said the same. We need to have the parameters identified by the court clarified by the law. That means that this Parliament has a job to do, and we should start right now.

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, in question period today, the Prime Minister suggested that discussions such as this should go to the justice committee. It seems somewhat disingenuous to me, because Bill C-51 has just been referred to the justice committee. We have 12 sitting weeks left to do something. Therefore, I am interested in the hon. member's response to the Prime Minister's comment.

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right that it cannot be the justice committee, for all of the reasons he mentioned. It cannot be any other committee, because they are all packed with other issues and we have very little time. We need to start now. That is why we need a special committee. The Prime Minister knows that. The Conservatives know they are trying to dodge the issue and avoid it because they are divided and do not have the leadership to do this difficult task and explain it to and discuss it with Canadians, in order to have a bill for February 6, 2016.

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to such an important issue. I will be splitting my time with the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia.

As members know, I have been long-time friends with the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia. I am so glad he is here in Parliament today, because he is one of the smartest people I have ever worked with, and it is just a pleasure to speak to this.

When we speak about this very important issue, I am certain there is not one of us here in the chamber or listening to any speeches today who is untouched by concern about family or friends facing serious health issues, now and in the past. We are concerned about their quality of life and their happiness, and also about their ability to have timely access to the high quality care they may need, especially in the last days, weeks or months of life.

Compassionate end-of-life care affects every citizen in the nation, yet we do not know about the options that are there for them and, eventually, for ourselves. My hat goes off to all palliative caregivers and people who directly work with those who are at the end of their lives. It is a very important time.

When we think of palliative care, we often think of it only as a type of medical care focused on managing pain and symptoms, but it is much more than that. Another way to think about it is that palliative care helps patients to achieve the best quality of life right up to the end. It focuses not only on the concerns of the patients, but on their families, often using a team approach. It has issues with paying close attention to managing pain, depression or confusion, and it is very mindful of patient dignity. After someone has passed on, family members may need support as they grieve the loss of the loved one.

This is a very important issue. We all have expiry dates and all of us will one day face this issue, yet numerous barriers remain. As far as we have come collectively, we still live with the stigma associated with the end of life. A recent poll conducted by the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association said that 45% of respondents had great fear of death. Society is now starting to acknowledge the end of life as a natural part of life, but it will still take some time before the majority comes around to this kind of thinking. Work has to be done there.

This morning, as I listened to the member for Mississauga—Erindale, I thought his speech was one of the most thoughtful speeches, well thought out because he touched on this. He also touched very personally upon what happened in his personal life. Society and all of us as parliamentarians have started to acknowledge end of life as natural part of life, but it will still take some time to understand all of the ramifications about it.

There is also the issue that is fundamental to public awareness, which is that palliative care is strongly associated with the end of life, but it is not uncommon for the term “palliative care” to be stigmatized.

At the end of her life, my youngest sister had heart problems. She had wonderful palliative care toward the end. It was very sensitive to us. She passed on at a young age, and this palliative care was a critical in helping her pass on without a lot of pain but with a lot of support around her.

Palliative care units are often perceived as places as death, but in our case when my younger sister passed on, it was also a place of supreme caring, love and compassion. We were very supported, and I know a lot of people have been, but there are real issues when people are seriously ill. There are real fears. Sometimes people resist a referral to palliative care services, and then afterward ask why they did not do it sooner.

However, if people do not know about palliative care and other end-of-life care options, there is a fundamental obstacle to requesting it and accessing it. It is something that has to be discussed with a doctor. People might think that palliative and end-of-life care can be provided in a limited number of settings like hospitals and nursing homes, but that is not the case. Palliative care can be provided anywhere, at home, in a hospice, in a hospital, in a nursing home. The best place for palliative care is the place that best matches the patient's needs. Many health care providers continue to build palliative care teams.

In the case of this issue, when we just have 12 months to come up with a possible solution, we have the Internet, as the member for Mississauga—Erindale said this morning. We have many ways of communicating. This is a very important issue, an issue in my view that does not rest on one specialized committee. It rests on Canadians to give their feedback to Parliament. It rests on Canadians to have this open discussion. It rests on Canadians to learn more about it.

Interestingly, in the Netherlands for instance, Professor Theo Boer, was on a regional team that looked at euthanasia. He was very much in favour of euthanasia in 2007. He said:

I wrote that ‘there doesn’t need to be a slippery slope when it comes to euthanasia...But we were wrong--terribly wrong, in fact. In hindsight, the stabilization in the numbers was just a temporary pause.

He said that before the House of Lords. Then again later on, he said, “I used to be a supporter of” the Dutch law on euthanasia “But now, with 12 years of experience, I take a different view.” In April 2001, it became law in the Netherlands.

However, in 2014 Professor Boer said, “don’t go there. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is not likely to ever go back in again.”

My question would, did they it too quickly? Did they not have extensive collaboration all across the country? I do not know, but in Canada we are a leader on many fronts and I know parliamentarians on all sides of the House are very concerned about this. As was said earlier in the House, we need to work together in a collaborative manner and not make demands that a special committee be compiled, and there we go. It is more than a special committee. It touches the lives of every man, woman and child in our country. It is deeply emotional. It is something that is deeply personal.

Professor Boer was totally in favour of it and examined it. When the law was put through in the Netherlands, all of a sudden he said that it should stop, that it should not do that. He said:

You must realize that a growing number of the Dutch are saying: for me going to a care institution would equate with unbearable suffering. I’m worried about that. Care facilities are not getting any better.

Have we examined all the care facilities? Have we examined everything that needs to be done to ease the end-of-life issues for anyone, young and old? No, we have not. This discussion has not been opened to the degree that it should. People might say that if a care facility is the reason for people to get euthanasia, then we should do something about care facilities.

Professor Boer went on to say:

If we don’t have the means to do that, then I’m afraid that in 2030 a large number of euthanasias will be performed because people are in deadly fear of the care facility

Toward the end of life, an awful lot of people have issues with fear. If they do not have family around, then they get very depressed. All of these things were mentioned this morning, and I will not repeat them because the member for Mississauga—Erindale has done that.

I encourage all members of Parliament to take their time and not rush this. It is a very important issue.

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague, particularly her passion on the issue of palliative care. Palliative care is fundamental in this discussion.

Last spring, parliamentarians of almost all stripes stood to speak on a national palliative end-of-life strategy, saying that if an end-of-life strategy were in place, the vast majority of scenarios that were promoted in the media would become unnecessary because of the support that would be given to families and patients. However, there has not been any action since then. There has been talk, but I am concerned that the lack of action on following through on palliative care is creating a vacuum for the courts to step in.

What steps will the government take to follow through on the commitment that was made in the House to ensure that we build a strong, cross-Canada palliative care strategy, working with the provinces and respecting their jurisdictions, but ensuring people have access to the end-of-life care they need.

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, as we know, palliative care, for the most part, is provincial jurisdiction. We also know that from a federal point of view, we are looking now at the euthanasia issue and palliative care to open this dialogue all across the country. How we get to the bottom of all this? I think we would all agree that there should be collaboration, getting as many Canadians as we can to give us feedback about where they are coming from and what they believe, before we go to a committee. I know that will eventually happen; we have to do that. We need to search far and wide because this is a very important issue.

As parliamentarians, we all need to do our part in reaching out, in a non-partisan way. This is a very personal, very important issue in our country today.

I dearly care for the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia and appreciate his points of view in many ways. Far and wide collaboration, reaching out to every Canadian, and doing it in a very meaningful way by using the Internet and eventually a committee to really do a good job is of paramount importance to the well-being of those who are reaching their end of life right now.

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, there is very little I disagree on with what the hon. member just said. Unfortunately, however, we are facing a 12-month deadline. This time next year, there will be no law unless Parliament acts. The reality is that we have 12 sitting weeks to do that.

While I agree with much of what she said, I wonder whether she would agree with what Preston Manning said in The Globe and Mail article, in which he set out a nine-point strategy for dealing with it. As Mr. Manning rightly has said, doing nothing is not a strategy or an alternative. In his final point, he stated:

The courts, the interest groups, the academics and the commentators have had a great deal to say on the pros and cons of physician-assisted suicide. Now it is especially important that our elected officials and legislators hear from rank-and-file Canadians.

If doing nothing is not a strategy, then what is the alternative, other than what has been proposed today?

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have a deep respect for the Hon. Preston Manning. His ideas are extremely good. However, what is salient in terms of what the member opposite has mentioned is that we basically have to talk to people and find out where they are coming from. It can be legislators and academics, but that is not everybody. In fact, that is a very small part of the population.

In answer to the member's concern about 12 months, which is extremely important, it would behoove us to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada for an extension so we can do it right. This is not something that should be rushed like was done in the Netherlands when one of the lead professors, who agreed with euthanasia, stood up in 2004 and said not to do that. That is not something we want to say in Canada. We want to get it right.

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to table, in both official languages, the Supreme Court ruling in Carter v. Canada, which is essentially what we are talking about today.

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table this document?

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will ask again later.

The reason I wanted to table the Supreme Court ruling is to make sure that we are all clear on what we are talking about. To do that, I am going to read a large section of the ruling. It says:

Section 241(b) and s. 14 of the Criminal Code unjustifiably infringe s. 7 of the Charter and are of no force or effect to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) 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.

Then it gives the 12-month extension to deal with the ruling. It goes on to say that the reason there is a shift in the debate is that there is additional information from when the Rodriguez case was heard:

In particular, the law relating to the principles of overbreadth and gross disproportionality had materially advanced since Rodriguez. The matrix of legislative and social facts in this case also differed from the evidence before the Court in Rodriguez.

In plain English, they got more information, more empirical information. That is why their decision is different. The court continued:

The prohibition on assisted suicide is, in general, a valid exercise of the federal criminal law power under s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and it does not impair the protected core of the provincial jurisdiction over health. Health is an area of concurrent jurisdiction, which suggests that aspects of physician-assisted dying may be the subject of valid legislation by both levels of government, depending on the circumstances and the focus of the legislation. On the basis of the record, the interjurisdictional immunity claim cannot succeed.

Insofar as they prohibit physician-assisted dying for competent adults who seek such assistance as a result of a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes enduring and intolerable suffering, ss. 241(b) and 14 of the Criminal Code deprive these adults of their right to life, liberty and security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter. The right to life is engaged where the law or state action imposes death or an increased risk of death on a person, either directly or indirectly. Here, the prohibition deprives some individuals of life, as it has the effect of forcing some individuals to take their own lives prematurely...

People are taking their lives prematurely to avoid the terror of what might happen. That is what it says in English vis-à-vis the legalese.

I will go on and ask again if I could have unanimous consent to table, in both official languages, the Supreme Court ruling, Carter v. Canada.

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table this document?

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

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

In that case, Mr. Speaker, I will encourage viewers to read the Supreme Court ruling, as it is a very interesting and really sets out the parameters on which Parliament can act.

This morning in debate, the Hippocratic oath came up. In the court ruling, it specifically says that physicians will not be in any way obliged to conduct a physician-assisted suicide. Some people have said that the Hippocratic oath forbids such an action. I have printed the Hippocratic oath and would like to share it with hon. members. This is called the modern version, written in 1964 by the academic dean of the school of medicine at Tufts University and is used in many medical schools. It says, among other things:

If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

There we have it: the Hippocratic oath already contemplates both saving lives as well as ending lives.

In March 2014 I introduced two private members' bills on physician-assisted death. These bills would have replaced section 241 and created a framework to ensure that someone, a competent adult, wishing to end his or her life would be able to do so after going through a whole set of procedures and review by at least three doctors, and also a lot of safeguards to make sure that the individual knew what they were talking about, that they were aware of the resources available to them, be they hospice care, home care, palliative care, and so on.

My bill also outlined situations where there would be a lag time between when the request was made and granted and when the action would take place. I was quite open to amendments. Quite frankly, legislation like that would be the preferable way to do this. I would much rather have Parliament be supreme and make the rules, and then the Supreme Court interpret those rules.

We have a situation again where the courts are trumping Parliament. That is an issue for another time, but unelected, unaccountable judges should not be making laws. It should be elected representatives.

My bill is also before the Senate, which is another pathway, if the Senate were to choose to do so, to bring the issue to committee. I throw that out on the table by way of suggestion.

I will finally say the Canadian people are far ahead of the courts and parliamentarians on this issue. A recent huge poll that was done showed that 86% of Canadians support physician-assisted dying.

The question asked was about a serious incurable illness or condition with an advanced state of weakened capacity that is permanent, incurable, and results in unbearable suffering.

That is a harsh question, but Canadians support support physician-assisted death, and we should support the Supreme Court decision.

Opposition Motion—Special committee on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia for his very thoughtful comments and for tabling the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. I know that he has done a lot of work on this issue with his two private members' bill that he spoke about, as well as the bills in the Senate.

I think the member's point is well taken that we need to ensure that there is a parliamentary process that is non-partisan. It is too bad that it did not happen earlier, but now we have the Supreme Court decision, and it is critical that it be followed up in a timely way and that we not just let the year go by.

I would like to ask the member how he sees that process unfolding. We have a motion before us today that would set up a special committee that would do consultation. I wonder if he would tell us whether or not he thinks that is the general direction we should go to make sure that Parliament itself is engaged with this issue.