Debates of May 20th, 2016

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to finally speak to the bill at report stage, although, as I just said in my previous question, I am really sad to have to do this under time allocation and knowing that many of my colleagues will not get the chance to bring the voices from their constituencies to this chamber on the bill.

I was prevented from speaking at second reading by the time allocation imposed by the government, but something even more peculiar happened when it did that. The abrupt change of the House schedule on May 4 with time allocation forced the second reading vote forward by five days, and for those of us who have responsibilities both here and in our ridings, it meant on that Wednesday morning, I was already flying west before the time allocation motion was introduced. It meant that I could not be here to cast my vote at second reading because I was already flying in the wrong direction.

I lost my chance to go on record as voting against Bill C-14 in principle. That is what I intended to do, not just because of my own experience and beliefs, but also because I believe it contradicts the Supreme Court's Carter decision, and most important, because the bill contradicts the opinion of virtually every person and every family in my riding that has contacted me about this issue.

I have been involved in discussions about end-of-life issues with several individuals who are facing severe debilitating and painful illnesses. I have talked to them directly. I have met with them and have heard their concerns. This reminds me to mention an important issue that is not in the bill, and that is the issue of palliative care and the need for us as a society to do a much better job with end-of-life care.

I do want to praise those who are actively already working in end-of-life care. This is not a criticism of their efforts that they make each and every day to provide better care for those who are facing end of life, but they are forced to do so too often with too few resources and in substandard situations.

I have been involved in public discussions locally on this issue, stretching back to a public forum on March 21, 2015, which was jointly sponsored by a group called Victoria Choices in Dying and Dying with Dignity. We heard from a panel of speakers, which I was privileged to be on, but we also heard from the public. We heard speaker after speaker at that forum say that they wanted the right to control end-of-life issues. They wanted the right to make decisions for themselves, and they wanted the right for their family members not to have to suffer intolerable pain for great lengths of time, but to be able to make the choice for assisted dying.

I believe, as I said, not just speaking on the basis of my own conscience, but representing the beliefs and needs of my community, that I should oppose Bill C-14, not just for what is not in the bill, like palliative care, which only gets a mention in the preamble and for which the government has, incidentally, provided no new resources and there is no reason to wait for legislation to do that, but I will oppose the bill for what is actually in the bill. I believe the bill is too restrictive and respects neither the letter nor the spirit of the Carter decision.

I think we are in this unfortunate position because the government failed to listen to the key recommendations of our own special joint committee of the House and Senate. The committee made very wise recommendations with regard to the bill, yet only a few of them were incorporated into the bill at the committee stage.

In the interests of time, I will focus on what I believe are the three key faults in Bill C-14.

The first and most important to me is the absence of a provision for advance directives.

I want to talk, if I am able to do so, about a very personal experience, the death of my mother last fall. My mother had always been very clear, even before she developed dementia, and that dementia began to take away her capacity, she did not want measures to keep her alive, lying in the bed without consciousness, with no quality of life, and especially if she were in great pain.

Her dementia was not the immediate cause of her death, so she would not have qualified under the bill because she did not have a terminal illness, but in her case, six years after the onset of the dementia, she no longer had the capacity to make decisions. Other medical conditions left her in a situation which she had feared: in great pain and unable to care for herself. Those other medical conditions did eventually take her life in conjunction with the decisions we as her children and the medical practitioner made at the time.

We feel very fortunate that my mother had been very clear about her wishes. Although that did not really make the decisions we had to make easy, we were confident that we were doing what she had wanted to do. My own family's experience and the experiences of other families in my constituency are why I believe so strongly that Canadians have the right to make advance directives about their care.

The second reason that I am opposing this bill is the fact that it would impose what it calls a reflection period on those at the end of life. Of course, again, those who have dementia or other similar medical conditions would not be able to have a reflection period because they would no longer have capacity. However, even for those who are competent at that point in their life, I believe that the 10 days, which the committee thankfully reduced it to, is still far too long for those who are living in intolerable pain, and far too long not just for them, but far too long to ask their families and friends to witness that suffering. If there is to be a reflection period, it needs to be even shorter than those 10 days.

My third reason for opposing this bill is the fact that it would narrow who is eligible to receive medical assistance in dying to those whose death is “reasonably foreseeable”. I know that others have said that we know what that means and it is specific. However, the only way I can understand that we all know what that means is that all our deaths are reasonably foreseeable, but what it means beyond that, I have no idea. It is not a term that is used in medicine. It is not a term that is used in law. That very ambiguity raises the spectre of excluding people who need medical assistance in dying and who would have been qualified for it under the Carter decision.

According to the lead counsel in the Carter case, even Kay Carter, a fierce advocate for the right to assisted death for those who are suffering intolerably but from a non-fatal condition, would probably be excluded from accessing medical assistance in dying under Bill C-14 as it stands. What this would do is force people into incredibly cruel strategies like starving themselves to death to make their death imminent and allow them to qualify. I would hope that this House would not impose those kinds of restrictions on people and make them make those kinds of choices at the end of their life.

Would I rather have this bill than no bill? The answer I guess I am going to have to decide on. My decision is going to be that yes, I would rather have no bill. I prefer to go with the Carter decision. Do I think it would have been better to have a bill? Yes I do. I am not opposed to having a bill on this, but it has to respect the Carter decision, and it has to have clear provisions in it, and it needs to have a reflection period shorter than 10 days. If we do not have the bill, what happens? We do not have a legal vacuum as people are saying. We have the Carter decision, which would provide guidance. There is a legal framework.

Although I did not actually look this up, when the abortion provisions were removed from the Criminal Code, the House of Commons tried twice to create new law regulating abortions. I am sure these same arguments were made at that time, saying that practitioners would not want to perform abortions because there was no legal framework. In fact, we went with the court decision. We still exist with the court decision on abortion as our legal framework and we have not had chaos in the medical community on that; not that in any way I wish to compare abortion to medical assistance in dying, but only on this issue of whether there is a legal framework that will apply on June 6.

The failure to meet the June 6 deadline for this legislation lies with all of us. It lies with the previous government; it lies with the current government, and it lies with us as a House of Commons. We all have to take responsibility for missing that deadline.

However, I do have to say I believe the government could have managed the House time better so that all of us could have participated in the debate and that debate could have been accomplished in time to meet the deadline. All the Liberals had to do was schedule this bill as a priority in this sitting of the House, which they failed to do. That did not happen. Therefore, I will, when the time comes, stand and vote against this bill at third reading. In the meantime, I will also vote against it at report stage.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Charlottetown.

Oh, sorry. The House leader for the New Democratic Party is rising on a point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, following on the comments of the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke on the issue of the timing on the debate, earlier I offered a unanimous consent motion that would allow us to debate this bill on Monday, which would not change in any way the time allocation vote that we have to have at the report stage of Bill C-14 on Monday evening.

Currently, in just a few minutes, we will stop debating this bill, but with this motion, if it is adopted by the government side, as opposition members are in favour, we would then have a second day of debate at report stage, which would be on Monday.

It is my hope that the government will actually work to do what is reasonable. It does not change the vote that we will have on Monday night on report stage on Bill C-14, but what it does do is it adds a second full day of debate and allows members of Parliament to speak on this important issue.

I will read the following motion for which I am seeking unanimous consent: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the time allocation order for Bill C-14 adopted on May 18, 2016, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3) be deemed amended to replace the words “not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the bill”, with the words “not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the bill”.

I hope that we will get unanimous consent and allow a second day of debate on this important bill at report stage.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am afraid the hon. member does not have unanimous consent.

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I stand here a little surprised that we were turned down. I can tell you that, although you and I have very different positions on this, I think the debate is what we are all learning from, and I thank you for all your words today.

Although I am at this time supporting the bill—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would remind the hon. member, and I am sure she does not mean me when she it talking, that she might want to speak through me.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank the member, because I think the biggest thing is that these debates are teaching us all. It is not just teaching us about what is happening within our own ridings, but what other Canadians are thinking. Therefore, I would really like to thank the member beside me, because those are the important discussions that we must have.

One of the questions I have is for my own personal interest. One of the concerns I have is the reduction from 15 to 10 days. I am wondering if the member can speak to that so that I have a little bit more clarity on why he believes it is important to reduce the number of days. It is just for my personal knowledge.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first have to say that I am shocked that the government again is denying members, under a very reasonable proposal that would not affect the ability to meet the June 6 deadline, the opportunity to speak in this debate because like the hon. member, I have learned very much from hearing others speak. I very much respect the level of debate in this House.

In terms of the reflection period, I firmly believe, and it is mostly on the personal experience I went through last fall, that at the very end of life when someone is suffering intolerable pain, it is not only intolerable for the person, but it is very difficult for the family members who spend most of the time in the hospital with their loved one, who have no idea how long the natural process will take, and suffer along with the person. I think that 15 days was certainly too long and 10 days is better. In my view, and given my personal experience, it is still too long.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

My apologies for the last question. I still had not left the previous motion, and somehow we moved right into the debate without me calling it. You slipped one in there. Congratulations.

I will go back to the hon. member for Charlottetown.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the hon. member for his thoughtful contribution to the debate, and a thoughtful contribution is what we always get from the member. We do not agree on our respective positions on the bill, but certainly his was and always is a valuable intervention.

There are two things I'd like to raise.

The member talked about the confusion, or lack of clarity, or the lack of value around the words “reasonably foreseeable”. I would ask the member to read the two words in front of those two words, which are “has become”. Therefore, the reasonable foreseeability in the bill is only in the context of a change in someone's conditions. Death has to have become reasonably foreseeable. I would ask for his comments with respect to the relevance or importance of those words.

Also, with respect to the June 6 deadline, he drew an analogy to the abortion debate in this country. My question for him with regard to the June 6 deadline is that, right now during the extension period up to June 6, it is possible for patients to petition a court to have medical assistance in dying; however, that process expires on June 6 and will no longer exist. Does the member see that as significant?

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

Mr. Speaker, I always value hearing from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

On the question of words before “reasonably foreseeable”, he has asked me to back up a couple of words, but if I do that, I want to back up to “who's natural death has become reasonably foreseeable”. If we back up that far, there is even more ambiguity. What is natural death? That is what we all face. “Natural death has become reasonably foreseeable” is no clearer. I would stress again that it is not a term used in medicine and it is not a term used in law. Therefore, I am not arguing about its value; I am arguing about its certainty. At this point, it has no certainty.

On the question of what happens after June 6, I do not believe there is a legal vacuum. I know the temporary exemption process expires. When we were dealing end of life with my mother, the last thing I wanted to do was hire a lawyer and go to court. I was spending the time with her in the hospital, as was my sister, though, it was not something we would have wished to go through. Therefore, I am not certain that this expiring is a bad thing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to share a few thoughts in regard to the report stage of Bill C-14. Perhaps I can start off by picking up on a couple of the words that were just mentioned.

When we talk about the details, listening to many hours of debate in the chamber on this very important legislation, a couple of things come to mind. One is the seriousness of the debate, the sense of compassion we hear in many of the speeches. People want to identify with the legislation and best represent their constituents. It is one of the reasons it has become somewhat of a difficult issue to try to manage. To try to give a false impression would be most unfortunate. There has been a genuine, serious commitment by the Government of Canada to accommodate all members who would like to address the legislation. We have seen that on several occasions. It would have allowed all members to participate in the debate.

We all share two responsibilities. One is to recognize that the Supreme Court of Canada made a decision, and there is a void. I will provide some comment on that shortly. Second is that all political parties in the chamber have to take responsibility in the debate that has occurred on Bill C-14. Members need to ask themselves why they feel limited in their debate. On a number of occasions, the government has extended the opportunity to afford every member the opportunity to speak. I wanted to be very clear on that point.

When we talk about the issue itself, there is another thing about which we should be talking a great deal. We heard a lot of this during the second reading debate. We have far-reaching legislation that will impact, directly or indirectly, every Canadian in every region of our country. At the end of the day, we need to recognize that this is just one major step. It is a step that has been mandated because nine Supreme Court of Canada judges made the decision that we needed to get some form of framework set up to provide medical assistance in dying.

I believe this legislation delivers that. I recommend that members look at some of the words that have been spoken, in particular by the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Justice. They have done a phenomenal job in getting us to the stage we are at today. I would not want to underestimate the role that others have contributed. In particular, the members of the joint standing committee of the Senate and the House spent many hours in the early part of this year in consultations. I wish to recognize the many efforts of committee members, who after second reading had the opportunity to go through the legislation and look at the possibility of amendments, and number of amendments were brought forward. We saw consensus among all three political parties for some of those amendments, which is great to see.

It is important we recognize that some in the chamber advocate that this bill does not go far enough. Others advocate that it goes too far. I believe the legislation before us today is the best legislation we can develop, put forward, and turn into law. At the end of the day, Canadians from coast to coast to coast will be assured that it is solid legislation.

If we do not pass the legislation in a timely fashion to meet a deadline determined by the Supreme Court of Canada of June 6, there will be a void. Some have said that we can just ignore the void. They can have that opinion if they choose, but it is the responsibility of every parliamentarian to respect the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. If members do not respect that, we are putting at risk a patchwork system, depending in which part of our great nation we happen to live.

There will be additional issues in many different regions that will surface and many will have to spend, potentially, hundreds of thousands of dollars dealing with the legislation in a piecemeal fashion because we did not respect what we have been called upon to do by the Supreme Court of Canada. There is urgency.

We know that caring and compassionate Canadians in every region of the country want us to do our job. That is one of the reasons it did not matter to me if we sat until three or four o'clock in the morning or 11 o'clock at night. We wanted to ensure that members had the opportunity to express themselves. As we get closer to that deadline, we have to get the legislation into the Senate. We have many reasons to be optimistic that the Senate has taken on what I believe is a more independent outlook in terms its responsibilities. Hopefully we will see a very productive Senate in dealing with legislation that has been passed by the elected members who sit in the House.

We have an obligation to do the best job in dealing with this issue. That means we should look at getting this bill through not only at report stage but at third reading in a timely fashion so the Senate is able to deal with it. I look at a glass as being half full, not half empty. I hope the Senate will do the same and assist us in meeting the Supreme Court of Canada's deadline.

I want to emphasize that this is step one. There are many other steps. One of them is the issue of palliative care. I and many of my Liberal caucus colleagues as well as many other members of the House are looking at this. The Government of Canada has been very clear on a solid commitment in two ways.

First is the health care accord. The best way to deliver palliative care is through agreements with the provinces, I wish the Minister of Health the very best in achieving that health care accord.

The second is the financial commitment of billions of dollars from this government to provide strong leadership going into the future, ensuring that palliative care is a top priority of this government and working with the many stakeholders that play a critical role in this so we have the best palliative care system in the world. This government, the Prime Minister, myself, and many colleagues in the House want to achieve good quality, world-class palliative care.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, those were very nice words, but I think it is time for action from that side of the House. We are where we are today. We can all play the blame game on why more members have not been able to speak, whether we should have sat until 3 o'clock in the morning, as the member said, or until midnight, or whether or not Motion No. 6, which has been withdrawn, was the answer to get this through.

We saw yesterday, in a spirit I would say of reconciliation, after the events that happened earlier this week, the government House leader withdraw his draconian motion, Motion No. 6, and promise to work with the opposition so that more members would have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-14.

The Liberals brought this bill on a Friday, which allows two hours of debate at report stage. There has been a very reasonable amendment to the motion put on the floor of this House to allow us to debate on Monday. It would not affect the timing of the votes or this bill proceeding to the Senate.

Why is the member opposing the opportunity for more members of Parliament to speak just on Monday? It would not affect the timing, the June 6 deadline, or the business of this House. Why not bring this back on Monday for another day of debate to give more members the opportunity to express themselves?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, since 1988, when I was first elected, I have been part of a House leadership team of sorts, whether it was in the province of Manitoba or here. I would suggest to the member that opposition and government members need to recognize the value of certainty. There are certain things that government is able to do, but there are also obligations of opposition. We need certainty. Both sides need certainty. If the political will on all sides is to make sure that members get heard and the certainty of respecting the Supreme Court deadline is there, it is amazing what the House leaderships of all three parties can do if they are prepared to work together. However, it takes the three parties, and we have to work with our independents, in order to make that happen. If the respect is there, who knows? Keep in mind that we still have third reading to deal with.

I would suggest to all members, if they are genuinely concerned, that they take the time to talk to and explain the importance of goodwill and trust with the House leadership.

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

Mr. Speaker, I obviously listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

In a number of speeches, including his, members often mention June 6 as some kind of unavoidable deadline. I admit that I am a bit less of a stickler than my colleague on this, although this date is an important objective.

Why is the government not focusing as much on the fact that the Supreme Court rendered a unanimous decision in Carter? A unanimous decision does not come around often in Canadian law. That seems just as important to me.

We must acknowledge that the Supreme Court is representative of the Canadian public, in a way. Perhaps we could move forward more quickly if the government were open to some amendments to bring the bill closer to the unanimous decision rendered by the Supreme Court.

It is very clear where we are going with this bill, and I think we could come to an agreement quickly if we put as much emphasis on the unanimous decision as on the June 6 date.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the question. Whether it was in the comments or the response to the first question, I indicated how important it is that we do respect the Supreme Court of Canada's decision and deadline. I talked about it during second reading. I believe that we have experts around the table, constitutional experts, individuals who are maybe a bit above my pay grade but who bring a lot to the table, to make sure the constitutionality of this legislation is intact, with the potential for a charter challenge and so forth.

I am confident that the bill will do the job.

Again, I will emphasize that we still have third reading on this particular piece of legislation to have more dialogue.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I am truly honoured to have the opportunity to speak on this bill.

Initially I wanted to listen to all of my colleagues within the House, because I recognize that it is important to listen to all Canadians. I recognize that the 338 parliamentarians bringing their views and the views from their constituents is just as important as listening to all the things I have as well. Giving their views, as we have seen today, is so important. I thank all of the members taking part in today's debate.

My role as a parliamentarian is to do the fact-finding, speaking to the constituents I represent, and making sure that I get the right message to make this decision and do what is right for my constituency and all Canadians. From that, I decided to do a lot of town halls. I sent letters to each and every physician in my riding. I had one-on-one meetings with many stakeholders, whether they were physicians dealing with palliative care or people who had family members with chronic illnesses. I also received many emails and letters as well as postcard campaigns.

To start, I want to share one of the letters that I received from one of the physicians. It is one of many that I received, but today I want to share this letter from Dr. Carroll Harder:

I am e-mailing in response to your letter I received requesting information on my concerns about Bill C-14. Thank you for requesting physician input. I certainly appreciate having the opportunity to weigh-in as a stakeholder in these decisions. This topic is obviously very important to me and I am trying to understand all of the implications of this for me and for my patients.

I appreciate the steps that have been put in place to provide checks and balances that will hopefully prevent abuse of this system by family or health care providers. I am concerned that many groups are calling for less restrictions than those that are currently in place dictating who applies for this and who is ineligible. I would ask that you, as our representative, continue to advocate for stringent restrictions with multiple layers of accountability to prevent abuse of this legislation.

I understand the protection that is in place for health care providers who conscientiously object to participating in Physician Assisted Dying, and again would appreciate your advocacy with medical bodies to ensure that this remains in place, even for those physicians practising in remote areas that may be pressured to provide the service when no one else who does is available in a reasonable geographic distance.

It is letters like this that I put together with all these types of information when coming to a conclusion on how I will proceed in voting as the representative for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

Overall, I had many concerns when I saw this legislation. When I looked at the joint report, there were some great concerns for me on things, including eligibility to include mature minors and those with mental illness. There is the need for palliative care. One of the biggest concerns I have is on the rights of physicians. Being a mom, the issue of mature minors is something that is also very important to me.

When the bill came back, I felt it was very necessary to vote in favour to send it to committee. I had to trust my colleagues sitting on that committee, from all parties. I would like to extend great gratitude to the member for Mount Royal. I had the opportunity to sit in on some of those debates and discussions. I had the opportunity to really hear what people were saying.

The work that gets done in committee is amazing. This week, many Canadians have the seen the work that does not get done here in Parliament, but it is at the committee level where we see good work being done. I would like to applaud the member for Mount Royal, as well as all of my colleagues who took part in these really important discussions.

There is something about going and listening to the people. I listened to people who were representing Dying With Dignity, which had a very far side compared to some of the people who are proactive in making sure that we do not have euthanasia. It is very different to listen to Dying With Dignity witnesses compared to listening to the Association for Community Living, for instance.

I went home and had discussions with people in my community. One of the constituents I met with was Dr. John Hofhuis. He is not only a close personal friend, but he is a well-known and respected physician in Elgin—Middlesex—London, who just recently retired. He lost his wife from liver disease. She had suffered for almost three years. I wanted to pick his brain to see what his thoughts were, not only as a physician but as a family member.

He shared with me all of the trying moments that he went through, and all the moments he went through having to see his children and his children's children suffer because of what their mother and grandmother was going through.

Another physician I reached out to was Dr. Derek Vaughan. He was a family physician, a general practitioner, in St. Thomas for a number of years, but in the last few months he has restricted his practice to palliative care only. He went from being a general doctor to doing house visits with about 10 members of the community. He visits long-term care homes as well. I spoke to him because not only is he a physician but he is suffering from MS. I really wanted to dig into his brain as well.

I also had discussions with my parents-in-law. My father-in-law should be a priest today but after three years of studying he decided to step back from that. I am fortunate and lucky because he was able to provide me with not only his religious insight but his insight as a person who used to counsel people. That was great.

One of the most important people that I can remember from all the discussions is a lady named Alice. Alice came to my town hall. She suffers from two irremediable diseases. She told me that she needs this legislation. To me, it is about listening to people like Alice. I listened to people on all sides of the issue, but when I sat down and spoke to a lady who in the next few years will lose her life, and I recognized the pain and suffering that she will go through, it is individuals like her and those discussions that really affect me.

Another part that I want to speak about, and something that is going to come up I am sure in future legislation, is the care of minors. Everybody in the House and everybody across the country has probably heard that I am the mother of five children. My children always tell me that things are different now than when I was growing up. I grew up on John Hughes films and Michael Jackson. Things were totally different back in the eighties. Those were great years.

We are now in 2016 and children are on their cellphones, iPads, or whatever all the time. They are wired 100% of the time. Whatever happens on a Friday night stays with them Friday night, Saturday morning, Saturday night, Sunday morning. It is a different time. I am finding that children are now living in a much more chaotic world. As I said, they are wired in and there are all these things happening online. I could go home on a Friday night and on Monday morning face sunny skies but our children are not in that same situation. This affects the mental health of our children. Even my own children have suffered from this. We want to unplug them and help them, but unfortunately, society now is part of the issue. They become depressed and some are not able to get out of bed. We are creating grievous conditions for them as well. When it comes to mature minors, I do not want to see that happen.

Let me speak about the palliative care issue. Last month my Aunt Catherine passed away. She had been suffering from cancer and had the most tremendous end-of-life care that anyone could ask for. The last family photo we have of her is of her lying in her bed with all of her children, grandchildren, and her husband, Uncle Paul, around the bed as they ate Easter dinner together. That is one of the last family moments they had together. It was that extreme palliative care that gave her the best end-of-life situation one could ever ask for. That is why I advocate 100% for palliative care. We need to make sure that we do have a third option. There can be life; there can be assisted dying, and there must be palliative care for people who need that.

I have heard many times that this will be the law of the land. It is important as parliamentarians that we do it right. We should not do it quickly. I recognize there is a deadline of June 6. I have sat here and listened today to my NDP colleague. We are learning things from all parliamentarians as they get up and speak today, or would have spoken on Monday. It is very unfortunate those rights have been take away from us once again, because this is how we learn. This is how parliamentarians can educate one another by sharing their stories, whether it is about my Aunt Catherine, or other things. When I am sharing my thoughts, members get a different sense of what is going on.

I am happy to be speaking today. I am concerned with what we have for amendments. I hope we can do more. I will be supporting the bill at this time, but if there are future amendments to include mature minors or those with mental illness without having the palliative care option there as well, I will not support this legislation in the future.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the floor obviously speaks with great sincerity and has definitely consulted with people in her constituency.

However, she did mention that June 6 was the deadline and we feel very strongly about trying to respect that deadline. I can remember well over a year ago when the Supreme Court of Canada made its judgment, wanting the government at the time to proceed in an expeditious fashion to begin the debate on this issue. Could she explain to me why her Conservative Party when it was in government did not begin the debate and why we have this very rushed schedule today?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, back in 2015, when this came out, a panel was set up by the former justice minister. However, I look at the work we have done today, and we can talk about these timelines. Let us be honest, this week we did Bill C-2, Bill C-6, Bill C-10, and Bill C-11. We had all of these things shifted off of the Order Paper.

What has happened here is this. Although it is a very important bill, unfortunately, when it came to the agenda of what we were supposed to be discussing and what we were discussing, a lot of political games were being played at that time. This took away the rights of the opposition members to debate this. We can talk about that. However, let us be honest about what happened this week. We lost hours of crucial debate because of the actions of the government.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London. I know her predecessor. I am not sure what they put in the water in that riding, but I do notice that both she and her predecessor demonstrated respect for the institution and its members. I thank her for her tone and the arguments she presented.

The only real collaboration between the government and the opposition on this extremely important issue happened while the report to the government was being written. I was present at one of the meetings. It was an exceptional instance of collaboration among senators and MPs of all stripes. Unfortunately, the bill before us is very different from the recommendations in that report. That should be cause for concern.

The government is so focused on meeting the supposedly incontrovertible June 6 deadline, failing which, it says, there will be a disastrous legal void. I do not buy that, because the Supreme Court set up a legal framework within which we can operate, at least temporarily.

Can my colleague speak to the steps available to the government to truly work collaboratively on Bill C-16 and, as in Quebec, achieve the greatest consensus possible on the issue, knowing that unanimity is not possible in any case?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for his kind words. We just do it right in Elgin—Middlesex—London.

It is about serving the people. I have always said that this is what we are supposed to do here. When we talk about the June 6 deadline, it is important that we consult with all Canadians. Yes, the report that came from the joint committee is very different than what we see in the legislation. That is why we are here. We are supposed to be debating. You and I have different opinions on that. However, at the same time, if we would have had the respect of the government, we would have been able to get more done.

I applaud the committee for the hard work it did after the legislation was created. I know the members sat down and went through it. However, when it comes to amendments, we only have two hours of debate on amendments. That is just not enough. We need more. If we are supposed to be representing Canadians, we need 338 people representing Canadians not 188.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Just for the record, I am sure the hon. member did not mean that her and I had differences in debate. I sure she meant the other person. I just thought I would clarify that.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona on a point of order.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know we have tried this before, but the third time is the charm. Given the importance of debate on this issue, it is important that we have another opportunity to extend it without affecting the timeline for the Supreme Court decision. Therefore, without moving the votes, we could extend debate on this.

Perhaps the government deputy House leader does not feel the same sense of urgency on this matter. He has been spearheading the movement against this motion today. He has spoken twice already, once at second reading and then at report stage, on this bill. However, other members have not spoken at all. They would appreciate that opportunity. I hope perhaps the deputy House leader has had time to call his boss and see if we can get a different answer this time.

The motion is: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the time allocation order for Bill C-14, adopted on May 18, 2016, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), be deemed amended to replace the words “not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage...of the bill” with the words “not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the bill.”