Debates of May 3rd, 2016

Criminal Code

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

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

I am concerned about the possibility that a health care institution as a whole could refuse to provide medical assistance in dying, which is now a charter-protected right. What is the danger in an entire institution taking that stance? Patients at that institution would be denied their charter right.

Is my colleague concerned about this too?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was very clear in my speech. My concern is that the bill does not address conscience rights for health care providers. It has to be paramount in the bill before it goes forward. Doctors, nurses, and medical practitioners should not be forced against their conscience and beliefs to perform assisted suicide.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question on the whole issue of protecting the vulnerable. Certainly there are some elements in the bill that give the impression of protection for vulnerable people, but there is no system of prior review to ensure that the independence of the doctor or the witnesses is actually supported. I wonder if my colleague would comment on the need for a prior review to ensure the protection of the vulnerable from coercion and to ensure the independence of the witnesses.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, believe that we need a much better oversight written into the law, both for conscience rights and for independence of people making this decision. I implore the government to work hard. We recognize that this assisted dying or suicide bill will eventually go through. I implore colleagues across the way to ensure that these rights for patients and an independent overview are put into the law.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, before beginning, I would like to join my colleagues in sending my thoughts and prayers out to the people of Fort McMurray, Alberta, and all Albertans. We know that a number of Quebeckers are working in Alberta. The media are reporting an incredible tragedy that is taking place as we sit here in the House. I want everyone there to know that we are thinking of them.

I thought long and hard before speaking to this important issue tonight, not because I did not want to talk about it or because the subject was not important to me, but because this is a hugely complicated issue. It took Quebec more than six years of work, thought, and study to reach a consensus, and even after all that work, it was not unanimous.

The proof is that most of the palliative care facilities in Quebec have not begun offering this option to their clients within their facility. I am going to focus on that in my remarks.

The joint committee recommended making more resources available for palliative care to improve access across Canada. I agree with that recommendation.

I had the opportunity to tour a palliative care centre last year when I visited my brother-in-law, who was dying. This evening, before speaking to the House, I also called an acquaintance who sits on the board of directors of a foundation that helps fund these types of homes in my riding. This person confirmed what I had noted last year. The mission of these homes is to take care of the dying and not to take their life. These homes support patients in their final weeks, days, and hours of life. The services and support that the individuals themselves and their families receive at these homes are essential so that they can live their final moments in dignity.

I believe it is important, as we prepare to pass such a law, to have the time to study it and put it in place. I do not believe that it is appropriate to move so quickly on such important issues as life and death.

My acquaintance also told me that she had lost a colleague a few weeks earlier. Her colleague knew that he was sick and that she was connected to the administration of the home. He told her that he wanted the opportunity to make use of the new Quebec law on end-of-life care and that he very much wanted to have access to such care. The weeks passed, and it came time for him to enter the home, where he could end his days in peace, with the idea of making use of the new Quebec law.

My acquaintance had the opportunity to visit him before he passed, and this man told her that he no longer wanted that option because he appreciated the care and attention he received from the staff and volunteers in the home so much that he wanted to live until his last breath. He probably talked about that option because he was afraid of suffering, of losing control, of making his family suffer. All of his fears were legitimate.

This example shows that it is possible for someone to live with dignity, surrounded by family members, in settings tailored to their needs, with attentive and, above all, competent people around for this extremely important stage in any human being's life.

I am giving these examples, not because they are something I experienced, but because they illustrate some of all the different possibilities and situations that could arise.

My colleagues who sat on the joint committee worked very hard to ensure that certain provisions would be included in the bill, and I would like to talk about those provisions now. They are all equally important and they represent an essential minimum in the bill before us today.

We identified five important points and we insisted that they be included in the bill. The first is that medical assistance in dying should be available only to adults. It should not be made available to minors. Medically assisted dying should not be made available to people who are mentally ill. The conscience rights of doctors must be protected and consent to the termination of life may be given only at the end of a person's life. Finally, palliative care needs to be improved.

In my opinion, that last point is an important aspect of the bill. Services like those offered by Maison Desjardins in Rivière-du-Loup, which is in my riding, should be available all across Canada, given how important these facilities are to those who work there and those who use them. The government should therefore invest in these types of services and facilities across the country. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the government has no plans to do that at the moment.

Another person I know in Montmagny has been receiving cancer treatment for many years. She decided to start up a palliative care facility in the Montmagny and L’Islet region, where she has been working tirelessly for many years. An army of volunteers are helping her and supporting her in her illness and in setting up the facility. My hope is that when her time comes she will be able to benefit from all of the effort she put into that facility. In order to ensure that these types of facilities are available, the government needs to create the proper conditions to help communities take matters into their own hands and offer places across Canada where people can live out their final days with dignity.

What we are really talking about in the House tonight is human dignity. It is crucial that all future decisions be made in a way that ensures that end-of-life care is available all across Canada. That is crucial.

In closing, in my riding next Friday, my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent and I are organizing an evening of discussion to promote a better understanding of this very serious issue. Knowing that we were elected on October 19 and given how quickly everything is happening right now, I feel as though we are caught in a trap and working against the clock, which means we cannot make informed decisions. In spite of everything, I will be voting in favour of this bill at second reading, so that the bill can go to committee and we can examine the committee's recommendations.

This does not mean that I will vote in favour of the final bill. I am committing to making a decision after listening to my constituents. I think this is a fundamental decision. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind: as the representatives of our constituents, we must listen to them and allow them to share their views. We do not have much time to respond to this bill. I was listening to my colleagues earlier and it occurred to me that June 6 is an arbitrary date. There will be a June 6 in 2017, a June 6 in 2018, and so on. I think we should be taking the time to really think about this legislation and make it as complete as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague.

I know what he means about confronting death. Many people, who are well supported in palliative care homes decide to see things through to the end. Both the Quebec legislation and the Canadian legislation we are currently studying provide for the right to withdraw a request up to the last minute.

I would like my colleague's opinion on the following. There is a major difference between the Quebec legislation and the proposed Canadian legislation. Under the Quebec legislation, a health care professional must be present until the very end. However, under the Canadian legislation, a health care professional could give the patient the lethal drug and then leave the patient alone. That seems unthinkable to me. We cannot talk with so much compassion for hours and then imagine that under this bill, someone could be given the drug he needs to end his life without anyone by his side throughout the process.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague.

The Quebec law was thought out over a period of six years. During those six years, there were studies and discussions between the parliamentarians and with the public, and working groups were set up. We have roughly six months to do as much here in Canada.

The legislation as presented has some extremely dangerous grey areas. We must review this legislation properly to ensure that we have it right. Our responsibility as legislators is to take every precaution to ensure that the legislation is the best it can be.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made the comment that he would be happier if we could take six years to create this legislation. I wonder if he would like to comment on what would happen in the interim. I have already had one of my constituents choose to end his life through legal means, before we had this discussion here, because that is what he has available to him through the Supreme Court decision. I wonder if the member would like to comment on that.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to time, let us go back to the moment when Quebec legislators decided to introduce a bill. If they had decided to work faster because people could not have access to end-of-life care, I do not think that would have been the right approach.

The right approach is to take the time to get this bill as close to perfect as possible. That is not the case right now. In answer to my colleague's question, I think we should take as much time as we need. Time is a space. We need the opportunity to discuss this with each other and with Canadians because we know that people's opinions about this bill vary widely across Canada.

Quebec was very innovative in its approach to this kind of legislation, and it is important for us to enable openness around this law and understanding across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, because of the procedural direction now being taken by the government, I think this will probably be one of the last speeches in this debate.

I want to recognize the tone of the debate that has taken place. I know members have spoken politely, softly, and respectfully. This has been the tone on all sides. However, I wonder if I may stretch that tone a little bit.

This is the most important issue that Parliament will deal with, I suspect, in a very long time. Without resorting to personal attacks, this is an issue to get angry about, if there ever was one.

The mistakes that we stand to make in this legislation mean that men and women may die who would not have otherwise, who will be missed because of the absence of advance review, who will be pressured forward because of the lack of palliative care, and who will be matched with willing physicians because of allowances for doctor shopping, even if they have been identified as not meeting the criteria by their own and other physicians.

Tonight, we should be angry. Canadians should be angry. While speaking softly and politely about the need to talk about death and the need to listen, the government is proceeding to shut down debate after only two days. The invocation of closure in this case will not in any way affect the timeline of this bill. We know that.

It is already being studied at the justice committee, and even days of additional debate would not prevent the justice committee from proceeding on the timeline it has already set. A vote would not change that. It would not affect the timeline at all, and yet the government is proceeding to shut down debate with its notice of closure motion coming forward tomorrow.

Canadians who care about this issue from all sides, Canadians who care about the important role we have as legislators to examine and debate legislation in this House, these Canadians should be angry about what is happening on this legislation.

The absence of meaningful debate increases the significant chances of error when it comes to shaping legislation that is, in my view, already riddled with problems. An error on an issue this important will mean unnecessary loss of life.

I have already spoken about my substantive concerns on this bill, but by way of quick review, this legislation contains no meaningful safeguards because even the exceptions in it are riddled with holes. The written consent provision excludes those who cannot sign. The waiting period can be routinely waived. Mental illness is not at all clearly excluded.

The requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable is too ambiguous to effectively exclude anyone. The requirement that two doctors sign off merely encourages doctor shopping. Even if the already-ambiguous criteria are not followed, people who kill an unwilling patient can be let off the hook if they claim a reasonable but mistaken belief that the criteria applied.

I have said that we have here a perfect storm: ambiguous criteria and a reasonable but mistaken belief clause, which means that it would be nearly impossible to prosecute anyone who kills a patient, even without consent. We have heard the data from countries with similar systems and the impact they have on patients who do not consent.

All of these problems could be fixed through amendments. A requirement for advance review by competent legal authority would ensure that those who do not consent are not pushed forward against their will. Provisions on palliative care and conscience protection would better protect the autonomy of patients and would also protect the autonomy of physicians.

We could discuss these changes. We could make these changes. We ought to.

Tonight, I want to also do what other members in this House have done, and that is to share stories about life and stories about death.

My story starts around the turn of the last century in Germany, with a Jewish doctor named Rudolf Kuppenheim, the first person in his family who was able to get a university education. One day in the course of his practice, a young child named Gertrud was brought to him for treatment for diphtheria. At the time, the usual treatment was to make a small slit in the throat that would allow the afflicted child to breath. The child's mother, however, resisted this treatment. Her mother refused to allow Dr. Rudolf Kuppenheim to make the necessary incision, because it would leave a scar. The mother believed that the scar would prevent her daughter from getting married.

Rudolf became angry, very angry, and justly so. He berated the woman for putting her daughter's life at risk. Notwithstanding the social pressures and the challenges that a young woman might face in that culture and time, this girl's life, her value, her dignity, were not dependent on whether or not she could find a husband.

As it happened, that girl not only got married, but she later married that doctor's son. That couple had a daughter who was born Ursula Lilly Kuppenheim, and Ursula Lilly Kuppenheim was my grandmother.

She grew up in a society that denied her dignity as well. As a half-Jewish child, she lived through the horrors of the Holocaust, only able to leave Germany after the war. Her mother had her dignity denied because she might have been hard to marry off. She had her dignity denied because of her Jewish heritage, but the shifting vagaries of social attitudes never changed who these women were: human beings.

Rudolf Kuppenheim and his wife tragically took their own lives when the Gestapo came to their home. Suicide is always a tragedy, but I understand that they were in a position where they felt that they had no other choice: suicide or tortured death in a concentration camp. No just society forces people to make that choice, but at the time my grandmother lived.

In 2006, my grandmother, or Oma as we called her, died of cancer. Everyone dies, but not everyone truly lives. Across continents, from persecution to extensive contribution, my grandmother truly lived.

She always told us that she wanted to die like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did. They did not suffer or get sick, at least at the time of their death. They just realized that they were about to die, called their families together, and said goodbye. That is what she wanted, but it did not happen that way. She did suffer very much.

Suffering is a part of the human condition. It is just and right that we seek to minimize it. It is also just and right that we understand that a human who suffers does not cease to be human, to have value, to have dignity. She had dignity from the moment she was born to the moment she died, whether her dignity was denied because of her Jewishness or because of her illness.

Members here have to understand that the so-called dying with dignity movement is shaped by a very dangerous view of humanity. It views human beings as instrumental or experiential creatures, valued for what they do or for the quality of their experiences, but that is not what we are. We are in fact creatures with intrinsic value.

We value the dignity of human beings, not principally because they are useful, because they are having a good time, or because they want to be valued. We value human beings because of what they are. We understand intrinsically the difference between human rights and animal rights, rights for creatures which have feelings and experiences only, and rights for creatures that have value intrinsically. This movement, this presumption that the ill or disabled lack dignity could not be more wrong.

I want to conclude with a final appeal to all members. If they have grave concerns about this legislation, stand up and vote against it at second reading. I know some members are worried about the possibility of a legal vacuum, but this legislation replaces ambiguous criteria with other ambiguous criteria. It does not create any kind of review mechanism. Fundamentally, it replaces one vacuum with another.

There is a better way. If members vote down this legislation or even ensure that the vote is closer, the government can, will, and indeed must come back with a more serious bill, and if it does a better job of incorporating certain specific proposals we have made, then we can all work together to ensure a quick passage of a better bill.

Alternatively, if we go along just because we want to proceed, we will have entrenched a piece of legislation that will cause real problems, life and death problems, problems that will be very hard to fix.

It is disgusting, but we have a proposal to invoke closure on an issue so vital, on an issue of life and death, after only two days of debate. We must stand up to this. We must make our stand. I have made mine and I ask members in the House to make theirs.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend spoke of intrinsic and instrumental value, and I want to get at that muddled philosophy of intrinsic value. If we respect the intrinsic value of an individual, we respect the individual's choice. That individual's choice matters if we respect that individual as having intrinsic value.

I wonder what the member thinks of autonomy, of the individual, and of liberty if he thinks intrinsic value of the individual is so fundamentally important.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say two things.

First, the idea of autonomy is built on a foundation of intrinsic human value. If one believes that humans have value, that has consequences, obviously, for one's desire to give them choices. Also, however, a belief in intrinsic human value with dignity can limit choices if individuals wish to, in a dramatic way, harm themselves in a way that denies their intrinsic value. The basis of autonomy is this respect for intrinsic human dignity in all cases, in all circumstances, which must be preserved.

The amendments that I have proposed are not ones that in any way derogate from autonomy with respect to euthanasia or assisted suicide. There are things like advance review, a guaranteed offer of palliative care, conscience protection for physicians, and more robust criteria, which will actually ensure that people who have suicidal ideations for short periods of time do not access this so-called service when, in fact, their longer-term desires are to live. These are things that protect a more robust notion of autonomy in all cases.

Clearly, whatever one thinks of the underlying question, let us marshal our energies in the direction of fixing these problems in the bill to protect both human dignity and values of autonomy.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is proposing to improve the bill, but he just asked all members to oppose it at second reading. I do not understand how he can reconcile those two statements.

On the one hand, he wants to improve the bill, and on the other hand, he is asking us to vote against it at second reading, in order to scrap it and allow the government to come back with a new bill. That is exactly what he said at the end of his speech.

Does my colleague think it is possible to improve the bill and thus prevent the legal vacuum that would exist on June 6, the one that he referred to?

In order to prevent that vacuum, we need to at least pass the bill at second reading to try to improve it. Then, at third reading, we can assess it again, and if my colleague wants to vote against it, he will be free to do so. However, at second reading, we need to be responsible and examine it more thoroughly, in order to make changes like the ones he just suggested.

If the majority of members reject the bill at second reading, the government will have to start from scratch and come back with a new bill. It will be even more difficult to meet the June 6 deadline.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. It is an issue of timeline. If this bill passes overwhelmingly at second reading, it goes to committee, it comes back with virtually no time left. If the government chooses not to make necessary amendments, it will leave members of Parliament with a much narrower set of options.

I suggest we take a stand against the government, with its bullying effort of closure. Let us take a stand against the big problems in this bill and reject it at this reading stage. There is plenty of time for the government to bring back a new bill if it works to achieve substantial consensus among members of Parliament. However, if we support the legislation at second reading and the bill passes at this stage, we will lose necessary time to do a more fundamental review.

Of course the bill can be amended at committee, but the various things I have advocated are substantial enough that we are better off rejecting it and asking the government to come back with something that is substantially better. It is the only way to send a clear message that the absence of protections for the vulnerable are necessary to ensure that people do not die who should not die. The absence of those protections in this bill is so fundamental that we must vote this bill down until we can be sure they will be included.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard many extremely poignant statements over the past few days in this chamber. Here are a few of them, not necessarily word for word, but the essence is there: This is by far the most crucial question we have faced in this chamber in the past 10 years. We are experiencing a fundamental shift in society. Centuries of thought are being overturned. Thousands of years of the understanding of the sacred gift of human life are being discarded.

The Liberal member of Parliament for Winnipeg Centre stated:

Perhaps this is just another step on the road of moral relativism that we are in nowadays, but even our judiciary cannot serve as a balance between the different societies making up Canada. We are in a sorry state. We have truly entered a new age, one of the throwaway culture where all boundaries are starting to crumble.

He goes on to say:

From an indigenous perspective, I look at this bill and I cannot support it, because it leads to a place where I do not believe we are looking out for the interests of all people within our society. It is not allowing us to fully comprehend the needs of everyone who makes up Canadian societies, but really, it is taking us down a path that is very dangerous, and we do not know where it ends.

This comment is true not only for our indigenous communities, but also for the overwhelming majority of all Canadians who are informed by their faith, whether that be Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, or Christian.

I want to read from a very insightful blog that I came across today.

...from its very first sentence the bill sounds the final death-knell, for all public purposes, of Abrahamic faith. The Carter/C-14 doctrine of autonomy is a clear repudiation of that kind of faith and the establishment of a new faith in man as utterly independent of God. One does not need to be Abrahamic to understand this. If the Parliament of Canada recognizes personal autonomy as extending a moral right to determine the manner and timing of one’s own death, and to take one’s own life or another’s life, it necessarily recognizes the person—and [Parliament] itself as a deliberative body of persons—as lying outside of all putative divine authority in such matters. In short, the C-14 preamble is the final repudiation of the Charter preamble. “The principles of fundamental justice”...now operate independently of any reference whatsoever to the supremacy of God. The link between “the supremacy of God and the rule of law” is decisively severed.

He then goes on to quote Nietzsche:

What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

Over the past few days in the House, we have heard from many members with a wide variety of positions. Let me first say that I am very thankful that the government decided not to follow through with all of the recommendations made in the Liberal-dominated special joint committee report and decided rather to incorporate many of the comments of the dissenting report created by me and other members of the Conservative Party.

While Bill C-14 is a huge improvement from the very permissive, wide-open regime recommended by the joint committee, the legislation falls far short in protecting some of our most vulnerable Canadians, and as a result, I cannot support it.

First, there is no firm commitment to conscience protection for doctors and other health care workers who for a variety of reasons may not want to participate in any fashion in physician-assisted suicide. This includes the need to make a referral to a participating doctor.

While the preamble states boldly that that it is “desirable to have a consistent approach to medical assistance in dying across Canada”, and later refers to “respect the personal convictions of health care providers”, there is no section in the actual clauses of Bill C-14, no clear, unequivocal statement that no doctor or health care worker would be under any obligation to participate.

Just as important, what about health care institutions and hospices which, because of the core values they embrace, may not want to have physician-assisted suicide available in their institutions? What about a hospice which raises upward of 50% of its own revenue from private donations and which relies largely on armies of volunteers and donors who believe in the inherent and intrinsic dignity of human life? My fear is that if any of these institutions are forced into situations in which they are obligated to engage in physician-assisted suicide, the community may face the very real possibility of losing those volunteers and donors, and ultimately, may in fact lose the very institution itself. This would be a tragic unintended consequence of not guaranteeing conscience rights to doctors, health care workers, and institutions.

These changes must be included in Bill C-14 if we are to respect the professionals and institutions that provide excellent quality of health care every day.

There also needs to be a clear commitment to providing palliative care as a real and viable option. To offer physician-assisted suicide without a meaningful offer of available and palliative care is to provide no option.

Let me quote Dr. David Baker:

Without a right to palliative care, Canadians will soon be receiving publicly funded physician assistance to die because it [palliative care] is not available. This will infringe their s. 7 Charter right to life, liberty and the security of their persons and their section 15 equality rights as Canadians with disabilities and seniors.

Another important amendment that is needed is to have a system of prior review. There needs to be a legal system in place to ensure that no coercion occurs and to ensure that the two independent witnesses are in fact independent and that the two independent doctors are in fact independent.

Dr. Trudo Lemmens, the chair on health law and policy at the faculty of law at the University of Toronto stated:

...some eligibility criteria are inevitably quite open to interpretation, which makes it all the more problematic that an assessment of competency and informed consent by two physicians is seen as sufficient to ensure compliance. I continue to support a prior review system as reflected in the Vulnerable Person Standard, which is supported by a wide and inclusive coalition of patient and disability advocacy groups, health professional organizations, health care institutions and individuals with a wide variety of ideological and religious affiliations.

While I am fundamentally opposed to the taking of human life at any point, if we are to adopt legislation as a House of Commons, if we are going to go down this road, we need to be sure that we have far more stringent safeguards included in the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and his long-standing work on this issue.

I was wondering if he could acknowledge this evening that a hypothetical new law would provide freedom of choice. People who are dying or whose health is very fragile will always have the option of accessing medical assistance in dying, which is now protected under the charter. These people will always be able to choose that option or continue to live out their days as they do at this time.

Does he acknowledge that, even with a new legislative regime, this does not change the fact that every patient who is dying will always be able to choose whether or not to access this service? Therefore, this respects the conscience of the individuals and their families, but also the freedom of choice and the rights of patients who might want to use this service. Does he acknowledge that under a new legislative regime, patients will always have choice and people will not be forced to use these services?

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been pointed out by a number of my colleagues that while freedom of human choice is a freedom we personally have, when we implement a regime like we are considering here, we are not just choosing for ourselves but we are choosing to have a person, a medical practitioner of some sort, obligated in some fashion to participate in our choice. It is on those points that the House has struggled over these past few days.

The one clear commonality among the concerns that we have expressed is the concern that we need to protect the conscience rights of those medical practitioners who for one reason or another may not wish to participate at all, either directly in implementing a physician-assisted suicide act or in referring to a person who would in fact carry out the patient's wishes.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that we were going down a path that we may not be able to turn around. He spoke about eligibility as open to interpretation. I wonder about some of the definitions in the bill. What really bothers me is the lack of definitions and the lack of clarity. I would like to know if the member would like to comment on this.

At what point does the suffering become too much? Is it at a point when no one else is suffering worse? By removing or aiding in the assistance of the death of those people who are suffering, does that level of suffering and intolerance become a speeding train which we cannot stop, to where it will be ever increasingly different and we will not be able to control it?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague in the Liberal Party, possibly the member for Winnipeg Centre but I am not sure, made a comment the other day, that in the first nations tradition, they always take into consideration how the decision they make today will impact seven generations from now. I thought there was a lot of wisdom in that perspective. Often we look at a decision and we make it lightly without thinking about the long-term consequences. Each of us in this room have made the mistake of making a short-term decision without adequately considering the long-term consequences.

I am very concerned about where we are going with this bill. Many of my colleagues, on both sides of the House, have given illustrations from other jurisdictions that have implemented a regime similar to the one we are considering, in fact in some cases more restrictive than the one we are considering. Yet over time, those jurisdictions have seen an incredible widening of the door, while thinking at first they had adequate safeguards, and in a very short time moving from a smaller number of people accessing physician-assisted suicide to an increase within a period of 15 years, for example, in Belgium I believe, it went from 330 to over 2,200 last year.

If we are to extrapolate those numbers to Canada with a population of three times that of Belgium, we are looking at potentially over 6,000 Canadians dying by physician-assisted suicide in one year. In my opinion, that would be a national tragedy.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have one concern for the member. I just noticed the member for Kitchener—Conestoga and the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan have now spoken repeatedly on this. I am concerned that the members on the other side have begun to run out of steam and are repeating themselves. Maybe the Conservatives do not have enough speakers to continue this debate any further. I wanted to bring it the attention of the House that perhaps the members could talk about the problem of getting new speakers on this subject.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am not sure that is a legitimate question in relation to the debate we are having, but I am going to turn to the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga, who seems to wish to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to address that question because I know many members in our party still want to speak to the bill. It just so happens that because of the procedural games that were put in today, there was a question of whether anyone would be able to speak tonight. However, now that we have that opportunity, we have had to do some changing around, but there are still more people who want to speak to the bill.

If members look at the comments I made tonight and the comments of my colleague, they will see that we are not repeating ourselves. We are simply telling members about the concerns we have had, and we certainly would not have had time in the 10 minutes that were available to us earlier.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak again tonight to this very crucial issue. There is no issue that this Parliament will be seized with that is more fundamental, not only to this generation but to future generations of Canadians that will follow. I for one want to be able to stand, look my children, my grandchildren, and my great-grandchildren in the eye and tell them that with the information I had available to me I made the decision that was right for Canada.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It being midnight, pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the debate is deemed adjourned and the House stands adjourned until later this day at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)