Debates of May 31st, 2016

Criminal Code

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, regarding protection for institutions, you represented the Saskatoon West riding for many years, and in that riding we have a Catholic-based hospital called St. Paul's Hospital. Could the member tell me how the hospital is going to deal with this, in a Catholic-based hospital, when we have no protection for institutions like this in the country?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am sure the hon. member meant the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek and not me, the Speaker. I just speak in the third person. Thank you.

The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have what we understand to be a faith-based facility providing health care in the city of Saskatoon. It is the St. Paul's Hospital. It has provided care to Saskatchewanians for many decades. Originally it was the Grey Nuns who provided the care, and now that facility is an affiliate of the health region in Saskatoon.

I would suggest that a faith-based facility would employ a number of medical professionals who would want to have their conscience rights protected, and the faith they express through the care they provide should also be protected. There would be deep concern if conscience rights for individuals as well as faith-based facilities would not be protected in this legislation.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Montcalm.

I am humbled by the opportunity to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying), at third reading. It is an important issue facing all Canadians.

Every time I come to the House, I come I wearing three hats. The first is the hat entrusted to me as a member of Parliament representing my constituents of Richmond Hill; the second is the hat of a legislator working hard to make the best decisions for all Canadians; and the third is the hat of an individual with his own convictions and beliefs.

Today, I will open my heart and share my thoughts, hoping to reach the hearts of all Canadians.

Let me start by acknowledging how challenging an issue this is. It is difficult for a person to engage in a conversation about death, yet our government has honourably taken on this responsibility.

On April 30, I participated in a York Region town hall, where a sizeable portion of the attendees were from Richmond Hill. They passionately spoke to this matter from all sides. I am inspired by the passion found within my constituency, and I would like to assure them, and all Canadians, that we are in this together.

I am sharing my story with the House, a story that complements the perspective of my constituents, and the work that we do in the House.

This is the story of my father's journey dealing with the inner turmoil caused by cancer. It is the exact reason why I am so passionate about the bill. I wrestled with this issue because each one of my hats had a strong stake in this debate and the final decision to be made.

The difficulty of beating cancer is well known to many. However, despite the odds, my father fought this disease. He fought it with all his power and he succeeded. Unfortunately, his success was short-lived and he relapsed in no time.

As a loving and supportive family, we did everything for my father to keep him happy and comfortable during the end of his days. However, no matter what we did, it was not good enough to relieve his pain. No amount of moral and social support was stronger than his inner suffering. We provided him with palliative care, but it was not enough. It broke my heart to watch my father slowly lose himself through the process. At the end, he was more concerned about the impact of his suffering on us than on him. After all, his pain was alleviated with heavy doses of morphine. However, there was no remedy for his mental pain and the hit to his pride.

I have heard the concern that providing medical assistance in dying would negatively impact vulnerable people. However, as I stated before, what made my father vulnerable was not having the option to put an end to his journey.

Eventually, my father suffered from two illnesses, one physical and the other mental. The amount of pain he was going through physically began affecting him psychologically as well. He began isolating himself from us, and in the end was suffering alone.

I agree with the government's commitment to support quality end-of-life services and to continue working with the provinces and territories to improve palliative care. Canadians and the Richmond Hill community have made it clear that is what they want. To that end, the government has committed to a long-term investment into palliative care of $3 billion over four years. However, no amount of investment into palliative care would have relieved my father's agony.

My father's experience is not a unique one. I am sure that others in the House know of someone who has endured similar distress.

We have a big responsibility to Canadians. Our responsibility is to make Canada great, to provide Canadians with the means for a better life, to facilitate their realization of their vision, and to help them achieve their dreams and aspirations. We were elected to represent their wishes, to provide services, and to make legislation to achieve those ends.

Let us look at the data that speaks to what Canadians want. Polls show that a majority of Canadians accept the idea and would even request medical assistance in dying if it were available to them. Those polls also show that over the years the acceptance level of medical assistance in dying has been been increasing. As Canadians became more aware of the matter, they began to empathize with those who suffer. In Richmond Hill alone, the local parliament project has shown that over 70% of my riding agrees that individuals who are terminally ill should be allowed to end their lives with the assistance of a medical professional.

In February of 2016, a Statistics Canada demographic analysis showed that persons aged 65 and over make up a record proportion of our population. It also showed that the proportion of seniors in our population has been increasing over the past 50 years, and the trend is continuing. What does this mean for us as legislators and representatives? It means that we must be forward thinking in our legislation and we must ensure there are mechanisms in place to deal with future problems.

The Carter case has shown us already that our current legislation is outdated, and the Supreme Court has asked us to update it. We are faced with a June 6 deadline. Let us ensure that we are prepared for this demographic shift and potential needs, such as the one on the table today. In order to ensure that we are prepared for this shift, we must ensure that we address key issues in our current system.

According to a research article published by the journal Palliative Medicine, in Canada, we need to streamline our legislative, financial, and regulatory affairs in terms of delivery of palliative care services. This means that once the legislation is passed we must continue to conduct studies and address lagging areas of hospice and palliative care services delivery.

I was fortunate enough to hear points of view from my neighbours in Richmond Hill during the town hall. They opened up their hearts and shared with me. The most powerful story came from people suffering with terminal illnesses, similar to the one my father had. They spoke of the importance of making advance requests, addressing the issue of mental illness, and access to mature minors. I am happy to hear that the government will appoint independent bodies to study these issues. I have seen members of the relevant committees work hard to ensure that they provide a reasonable approach to the legislation.

It is after carefully thinking through all these issues that I have decided to support Bill C-14.

I realize our government has genuinely worked hard on the bill. As it stands, Canadians do not have a choice on how to say goodbye to this world. My father died in my arms. He died in an attempt to say something to me, something I will never know. He did not choose when to leave me. He did not choose how to leave.

Through my declaration of Bill C-14, I am sending four messages. To my conscience, I can say rest assured that with this decision I have balanced the three hats and their responsibilities to the best of my ability. To my dad, I would say, “It took 10 years to understand what you wanted to say to me before you left me. Dad, in supporting this bill, I am happy to carry your wishes forward”. To my constituents and the Richmond Hill community, I want to assure them they were consulted, they were heard, and they are well represented.

To all Canadians, it has been a long and hard journey, but the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. However, in order for the journey to begin, the bill needs to pass. Let us work together to take that first step.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his very heartfelt remarks and identify with him in the loss of close relatives.

One of the misleading points that has been said over and over again in the House is the percentage of Canadians that support euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide. Inevitably the Liberals are quoting statistics that relate to a terminal illness. The bill has nothing to do with terminal illness.

My question goes back to the issue of conscience protection. We heard many Liberal colleagues refer to the protection in the preamble, which says:

Whereas nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion;

Then on page 8, in proposed subsection 241.2(9), it says:

For greater certainty, nothing in this section compels an individual to provide or assist in providing medical assistance in dying.

Those are fine sounding statements, but there is no ironclad protection for the medical professional to not be involved in physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia. There is no protection for him or her not to have to refer or make an effective referral, and more importantly, there is absolutely no protection for institutions that were created by volunteers, are staffed by volunteers, and are run by donations of individual Canadians, hospices that were set up with the express purpose of helping people through those final days of life.

Why would my colleague not ensure that, at the very least, physicians, medical workers, medical professionals, and institutions have that conscience protection to allow them not to participate in something they find morally objectionable?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight the fact that there are three pillars that provide the proper safeguards in this matter. We are providing proper safeguards for the people. We are providing safeguards for the doctors and the nurse practitioners, and we are also providing safeguards for the medical associations as well as other practitioners.

I also want to mention that we will be working very closely with the provinces and territories to make sure those proper safeguards are put in place and the people who need the help are protected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very heartfelt speech and for sharing his very personal and profound story with the House. I agree that if a bill like this were in place it would have alleviated, in particular, his father's suffering.

Based on personal experience, what is the member's opinion on granting Canadians the option for advance directives?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Canadians need to have the option of how to end their lives. Unfortunately, my father did not have that option. When he was diagnosed with an advanced case of cancer, we consulted with the doctor and asked for options. We were basically given very interesting options. We were told that if we were religious, to go pray, and if we were science believers, to go bet on the science that in 5% of the cases like my father's the person would die from a heart attack. The other 95% would suffer deeply and go through organ failure. Whether we believe in science or not, we were lucky that he made the transition as a result of a heart attack when he passed away.

During the town hall in York Region, I was greeted by a couple from Richmond Hill who shared their story with me. The husband was suffering exactly the same stage of cancer as my father and both of our stories really resonated with each other.

I believe that Canadians should have this option. My father would have suffered much less had he not experienced that prolonged mental distress. The government has announced that it will appoint one or more independent bodies to study advance requests in the context of medical assistance in dying. I look forward to being part of that consultation process and I invite all members in the House to participate. As I said, this is a journey of a hundred thousand miles and this is the first step. We have to take that first step, but we need to stay engaged.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing his speaking time with me. It is small consolation, since the members of my political party were excluded from the committee formed to produce a bill.

Today, I can only say that we are witness to a sad chapter in the history of “parliamentary” democracy in Ottawa and in the House of Commons. I would even say that it is the product of a deplorable process, in both form and content.

Quebec has been cited often as an example. I followed and participated in that process. It was a process that aimed for transpartisanship, not just in words, not just in spin, but in actual fact. The goal of that transpartisanship was to achieve the broadest possible consensus.

Obviously, there was no Carter decision. Consequently, the Quebec government and the opposition parties included what was a step forward with regard to the problem of end-of-life care. They included medical assistance in dying in a continuum of end-of-life care, which is a provincial responsibility, by the way. They combined what was always considered distinct, that is, palliative care versus euthanasia, and they said that from then on, Quebec would provide end-of-life care. Obviously, that would take place in a palliative care setting, because there would no longer be any point to curative care. When someone goes to palliative care, recovery is no longer possible.

At that point, they said that there would be palliative care, in which a person can die voluntarily at the conclusion of his or her end-of-life process, which is irremediable and already under way. The person is then in the terminal phase of life. If, one morning, the person, having received the appropriate palliative care, is completely at peace and ready to let go, this is not a failure of palliative care. That could be considered what we might wish for everyone here, that is, to be on one’s death bed, utterly serene, ready to let go and at peace with oneself. Palliative care can also lead to that.

That is what Quebec decided to do, but it did not do so in the way the Liberal Party chose to do it. The Liberals steamrolled parliamentarians, and this bill was controlled by the executive from beginning to end, with the excuse that June 6 was a deadline that could not be circumvented. At the moment, we are well aware that with all the pitfalls and problems in this bill, it is impossible to meet that deadline.

The government should have, with the assent of all parliamentarians, given us the means to act and found ways of doing things properly instead of gagging people, since we know full well the deadline will not be met. We are told that it is very serious, but I must point out that the Morgentaler decision was struck down and declared unconstitutional as far back as 1988, but as far as I know, it is still in the Criminal Code, and we have not descended into total chaos in that area.

We have to move forward, but let us not get carried away. With regard to form and content, the question we have to address at this stage is the minister’s unproven claim that her bill passes the charter test.

In the Morgentaler decision, the judges struck down the abortion law based on just one of the principles, just one of the rights affirmed in section 7 of the charter: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person”.

Since the judges in the Carter case decided that three rights had been unreasonably infringed, namely the right to liberty, the right to life and the right to security of the person, it would suffice for just one of these rights to be infringed for it to be unreasonably infringed and for section 1 to fail to save the minister’s law.

Now, I asked her the question several times. I asked her to show me how a grievous and irremediable disease or disability that causes a patient intolerable suffering does not unreasonably infringe the right of that patient to security of the person. According to the government’s bill, to have access to medical assistance in dying, this person will have to either go before the courts, or go on a hunger strike so as to approximate the totally deplorable, inhuman, vague and unconstitutional criterion of reasonably foreseeable natural death.

The government never made an effort to accept even one of the amendments, however unimportant, from the opposition. It amended its bill on its own. I have never seen an attitude so contemptuous of the legislature. If this is the legislative democracy and the legislative powers of the House of Commons, it is hard to swallow, especially on a subject as sensitive as this one.

However much we boasted, if we were that sure of ourselves, we still had the option of referring this to the Supreme Court. It is true that it is not up to the Supreme Court justices to make the laws. However Parliament did nothing for the last 40 years. Eventually, certain citizens won a judgment. The only solution recommended over the last 40 years was palliative care, as if that were the answer to all our problems.

The Carter decision must not resolve only the end-of-life issue, but also the assisted suicide issue. There are people on the other side of the House who do not even differentiate between suicide and assisted suicide, which is in fact decriminalized. These are not the same realities. Suicide is not irremediable as long as the person has not acted out. A suicidal state can be corrected. There are people who are able to help these persons; there is therapy and medication.

However, when a person is suffering from Alzheimer’s, that is irreversible. If the government had agreed to remove this criterion, it would have corrected a number of shortcomings in this bill. In particular, it would have made it possible for any request to be made in advance, meaning that people could make a valid request before becoming incapable of doing so. However, the government is doing only as it wishes and is washing its hands of this.

The government is displaying political cowardice regarding the role it is obliged to play in the House. It is not the democracy of judges that we are demanding, but rather a democracy that respects the legislative power and the ability of legislators to define laws.

Also, let us stop trivializing things. It is our duty to make good laws that make sense. Judges, as custodians of rights and freedoms, have the duty to determine whether those laws are in compliance with the charter and the Constitution.

Therefore let us stop claiming that any law that leaves this place will necessarily be challenged and that the judges will have to make a ruling. What is absolutely inhumane is that the burden of litigation will fall on the shoulders of vulnerable persons and those who are suffering.

People who are vulnerable and suffering are precisely those the minister claimed she wanted to protect.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, it is a little disappointing to hear such a partisan speech on an issue like this. I have two questions for the hon. member.

He said that the committee had rejected all serious and important amendments. He knows for a fact that the committee accepted one of his amendments. Was that not a serious or important amendment?

The second question I wish to ask is as follows. In his view, the bill is unconstitutional. Today an article was published in La Presse, which consulted four constitutional experts in Quebec. Of those four, three were from different universities and thought that the bill was constitutional.

Does he acknowledge that there is a diversity of opinions among constitutional experts? Does he accept that? Does he accept that the Supreme Court has said that it is Parliament that has to act and is in the best position to act?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I have 10 minutes to respond, I will respond to each of the questions.

My colleague is confusing passion with partisanship. My comments go well beyond partisanship, and at this stage, I have just indicated that my party will never lend its support to such a bad bill.

Furthermore, there are certain constitutional experts who, from the heights of their office, may not have an accurate grasp of the field and the practical realities. If we have a criterion as vague as reasonably foreseeable natural death, we have to know what that means in terms of operationalizing it in the field. People in Quebec were already saying that the law was consensual and posed no problems. We are starting to see that there are certain disparities across regions and institutions. I am therefore very mistrustful of people who are not familiar with the field on a question as serious and delicate as this.

That being said, the amendment you mentioned was minor, relative to the one that consisted in striking and eliminating the totally wrong-headed, unacceptable, and unconstitutional notion of reasonably foreseeable natural death.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would remind the hon. member to speak in the third person, through the Speaker.

The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga has the floor for questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with my colleague more concerning the job of the Supreme Court and the job of this legislature. The Supreme Court has overturned the will of this legislature, which has been expressed probably 15 times since 1991, clearly rejecting initiatives to allow physician-assisted suicide. Therefore, I agree with my colleague on that.

I have a question for my colleague that is actually posed by Dr. Will Johnston, a medical doctor from Vancouver. He says:

...can you imagine end of life care so good that you would set aside your demand for assisted suicide? If you can, let's continue to create such care. If you can't or won't, your focus would seem to be on suicide rather than the relief of suffering and you are likely to do more harm than good.

Does it actually give Canadians a real choice when we currently have palliative care only available to approximately 30% of our population of those who would need palliative care? Does it give them a choice if we offer them physician-assisted suicide on one hand, but cannot offer them actual available, affordable palliative care on the other?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have already answered my colleague concerning palliative care. I repeat that, 40 years ago, it was said to be the only way to manage end-of-life care.

However, in 40 years, palliative care has not become more accessible. Indeed, there is an accessibility problem. Therefore, that is not the only solution.

Nevertheless, Quebec was very careful to place end-of-life care within the continuum of assistance in dying and comprehensive palliative care. Therefore I do not think that is antithetical or contradictory.

There are diseases and afflictions that make people suffer. There are no drugs that can take away the pain or suffering of those people who are dying or afflicted.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among the parties and members of the House in regard to what I am about to propose, three separate motions. I will propose one at a time, asking for unanimous consent. The first one reads:

That, in relation to the annual conference of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committee and the Canadian Council of Legislative Auditors, annual conference, ten members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to Yellowknife, Northwest Territories in August, 2016, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am afraid we do not have unanimous consent.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to tell you that I will share my time with my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh.

As a new member, I had, for my very first experience on a committee, the immense privilege of sitting on the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying. It was a privilege in a number of respects. First, I was there with my colleague from Victoria, who shared with me his experience as well as his expertise as a constitutional lawyer. He was very generous in allowing me to work with him in the committee.

It was also a privilege because it was an opportunity to learn about all the work that had been done since February 6, 2015, when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Carter case. We read the report of the group of experts that criss-crossed Canada throughout last summer and fall and met with everyone interested in the issue of medical assistance in dying. They also met with people in the various American states that have had medical assistance in dying for 10 or 20 years. They went to Europe. They reported to us on everything they had learned about medical assistance in dying. We also read the report of the group of provincial and territorial experts. Although Quebec was the trail-blazer, working on the issue for six years and passing a law on end-of-life care last December, several provinces have studied the issue.

It was also a privilege to hear over 60 witnesses who came to present their points of view, whether as legal experts or as physicians. We met with representatives of different professional associations such as nurses and pharmacists. I found it really rewarding to hear all these witnesses and to better understand the different points of view. Indeed, on the subject of medical assistance in dying, as has been noted, there can be an opinion and its counter-argument. It was in light of all these views that we arrived at our recommendations. However, the particularly rewarding aspect of sitting on this committee was the commitment of the 11 MPs and five senators who gave full meaning to the term “working together”.

As a member of this committee, I developed a great sense of fellowship with all these parliamentarians. In spite of our differing views, we took the time to listen to each other, and we were respectful in our work. We spent dozens if not hundreds of hours working together. In spite of our differences of opinion, we were all committed to arriving at the best possible outcome.

This commitment to so complex and delicate a subject was for me a truly useful experience. Unfortunately, when I reported for the first meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the first evening when we did the clause-by-clause study and when we considered what I regard as the most significant amendments dealing with the most fundamental elements of the bill, I did not feel at all that open-mindedness, that commitment on the part of the Liberal representatives sitting on that committee. I did not feel that same willingness to listen to each other to arrive at the best possible outcome.

That evening, I was very disappointed to see that certain committee members quite simply did not seem to want to be there. They may have been checking their email, because they spent a lot of time with their noses buried in their tablets or looking at the ceiling. They mechanically voted against the amendments proposed by the opposition. Viewed from the outside, they seemed to be acting like good little soldiers.

In the special joint committee, we did indeed arrive at one dissenting report, a supplementary opinion. However, throughout our work on the 21 recommendations, we had this desire to reach the best possible outcome on this very difficult subject.

Since tabling our report, I have fallen into the habit of saying that it will be relevant for at least 10 years. Of course, I did not expect the government to take all of our recommendations into account. In so short a time, that was not possible.

Basically, what the Supreme Court has told us is that medical assistance in dying is a right. Since it is a right, therefore, we were motivated throughout our discussions and our work by the desire to be sure not to discriminate against anyone. However, this evening I will be obliged to vote against this bill, even though I have invested hundreds of hours of work in it and even though I have read thousands of pages and heard all those witnesses. For me, reasonably foreseeable natural death is a ground of discrimination, based on age, for example.

As a member of the special joint committee, I had the opportunity to take time to meet with my constituents. I wanted to seek out the wisdom of those who work with persons at the end of life before taking a position on the various recommendations. I wanted to test my assumptions and my thoughts. I had the opportunity to meet, for example, with Les Amis du crépuscule. This community organization in my riding works every day with persons at the end of their lives. Those workers told me that they would respectfully welcome anything that we would decide, because they welcome the choices that people make. Indeed, the question of medical assistance in dying is essentially a question of choice. One person may choose to request such assistance. Another, who for reasons of conscience or other reasons cannot accept calling for medical assistance in dying, need only refrain from requesting it.

These meetings made me realize just how unavailable palliative care is in our communities. The member for Victoria and I made note of this in our supplementary opinion in the report of the special joint committee. My riding includes the Hôtel-Dieu, one of the largest hospitals for long-term care in Quebec. Hundreds of persons die there every year. There are only 12 beds for palliative care. We have one home that accommodates people at the end of life who are suffering from cancer. This home receives 800 applications per year and can accept only 200.

Some people have told me that, if they have to be ill as they end their lives, they want to have quality care and to live with dignity beforehand, so they can die with dignity. This was a very strong message for me, because fundamentally, we must remember that this bill is intended to ensure that each of our fellow citizens is able to die with dignity.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

However, I happen to disagree. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I take exception to the fact that she mentioned that during the very considerable and time-consuming debate on the amendments before the committee, the Liberals were not interested, not listening, or not working in the best interests of Canadians. The fact that we happen to disagree with some of the amendments that were put forward by the parties opposite does not mean that we were not taking our job seriously. I do not think it was fair to characterize it in those terms.

There were in fact 16 amendments made at committee, some proposed by the NDP, some by the Bloc, and some by the Conservative Party. We worked collaboratively on things such as amending the preamble and putting palliative care in it, as well as amending conscience rights to include a clause to ensure that nothing could compel anyone to perform the service.

I note as well that the NDP voted against almost all, if not all, of the proposals by the Conservative Party. Therefore, for her to say that Liberals were not interested would cause me to wonder if the New Democrats were not interested in listening when other amendments from other parties were put forward.

My question is this. Does she not agree that Liberals worked collaboratively and that the 16 amendments did improve the bill at committee?

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my colleague was offended by what I said.

What I said is that there is a difference in how the two committees operated. I invite him to talk to his colleagues who were there the evening we first began studying the bill clause by clause and his colleagues who sat on the special joint committee because there were really two completely different work atmospheres.

Members cannot vote for conflicting amendments. Yesterday evening, I voted for some amendments and against others.

I asked some of my Liberal colleagues who sat on the special joint committee whether they were able to share their opinions on medical assistance in dying and the topics discussed by the special joint committee with their caucus. One of them told me that the government is moving in one direction and going against it would be like trying to paddle against the current at Niagara Falls. I do not understand that attitude when we are examining such an important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, whom I had the privilege of working with on the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying, for her input.

I am pleased to hear that she is going to vote against this bill. She is voting against it for different reasons than I am, but I would like to ask her this. It looks very probable, based on last night's vote, that this bill will pass, at least in the House. Assuming the bill passes, would my colleague at least agree that we have to do better on conscience protection?

Right now, there is a weak statement in the preamble, which is not part of the bill. There is another statement in the actual bill that says nothing compels an individual to participate, but there is no ironclad protection for physicians, medical workers, and medical professionals, and especially for institutions. I wonder if my colleague would agree that there should at least be more robust protections in this bill for medical workers, and health care institutions.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this evening, some members will vote against this bill for conflicting reasons. The government will have accomplished that.

With regard to conscientious objection, I believe that, if certain people do not want medical assistance in dying because of conscientious objection, all they have to do is not ask for it. With regard to health professionals, the joint special committee clearly established that some aspects of health fall under federal jurisdiction, while others fall under provincial jurisdiction.

In my opinion, the role of doctors and the way they do their work falls under the responsibility of professional bodies and provincial jurisdiction. I feel like telling my colleague that a doctor who refuses to provide medical assistance in dying should at least give the patient some direction.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the Environment; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs.