Debates of May 4th, 2016

Bill C-14—Time Allocation Motion

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #47

Criminal Code

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

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 member for Trois-Rivières, Employment Insurance; the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, Veterans Affairs; and the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Status of Women.

The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Second Reading

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise today to join many other colleagues in addressing the significant national debate surrounding Bill C-14, and our government's prompt and appropriate response to the Supreme Court's Carter decision. I believe this was a duty the previous government neglected, and I am proud of our government's response to this complex issue.

Bill C-14 represents a mandated response to the Supreme Court's Carter decision by providing a national framework to ensure, subject to necessary safeguards, access to a fundamental and inviolable right enshrined under section 7 of the Canadian charter. After all, the Carter decision transformed the question before the government from one focused on whether the government should legislate and legalized medical assistance in dying to the very different question of how fast to legislate and legalize medical assistance in dying.

Despite the clear contours delineated by the Supreme Court, I would like to acknowledge the hard work of all members of the House over the course of the past several months to contribute to this important national debate by recognizing the crucial role of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, and acknowledging the leadership demonstrated by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health for introducing this transformative legislation.

I would also like to thank all Canadians who have, in one way or another, participated in nation-wide consultations with their provincial and federal governments. I am very proud that many constituents in my riding of Willowdale took the time to approach me regarding various aspects of this bill, and having listened to them, I realize full well that this is a deeply important issue for many Canadians.

At the centre of the profound and solemn debate that has ensued in the House and elsewhere, have been discussions focused on such foundational principles, such as the need to respect individual rights, equity, consent and capacity, clarity, dignity, and accountability. Yet, given the extensive debate that has occurred in the House, I would like to specifically focus my remarks on two specific aspects of this bill which I believe need to be further highlighted and emphasized.

The first issue I will focus on is that Bill C-14 represents a significant first step that now requires further co-operation with our provincial and territorial partners. Second, it is important to recognize the significant safeguards embedded in Bill C-14.

One of the primary characteristics of charter rights, of course, is equal access. If charter rights are by definition universal, they must, within reason, be equally accessible to all Canadians. This is where I believe Bill C-14 comes into play by establishing a national framework for medical assistance in dying that can ensure equitable access across provinces and territories. I feel that Bill C-14 fulfills an expressed desire by our provincial and territorial governments for a national framework to address this timely issue.

I strongly believe that this legislation provides an opportunity for the federal government to facilitate a collaborative approach, which includes provincial and territorial consultation. Specifically, the bill's own preamble clearly states that the law must apply consistently across all of Canada. As such, this bill advocates for a national framework in order to avoid variations from province to province.

As we all know, the Quebec government has in many ways laid the groundwork for medical assistance in dying with their own provincial legislation. However, while provinces will continue to act as key legislative and administrative partners in medical assistance in dying, I think we can all agree that establishing a pan-Canadian, national approach was crucial.

We should continue to work with the provinces and territories to explore mechanisms to coordinate end-of-life care for patients who want access to medical assistance in dying, thus avoiding crucial gaps in access and delivery.

Furthermore, in keeping with our government's commitment to evidence-based decision making, we will engage with the provinces and territories to support the development of a pan-Canadian monitoring system to collect and analyze data, monitor trends, and publicly report on medical assistance in dying.

This two-way relationship is important. In other words, Bill C-14 represents the beginning of a partnership on medical assistance in dying. Our provincial colleagues, informed by the framework we have provided, can now begin the process of implementing their own medical assistance in dying regimes. Quebec, of course, has already done so, while Ontario and most other provinces have begun the process through the creation of a PT advisory groups on physician-assisted dying.

Allow me now to shift to the second element I would like to address today, the topic of the safeguards included within Bill C-14.

Bill C-14 makes Canada the ninth jurisdiction in the world to legalize medical assistance in dying, not including Quebec. Fortunately, we have been able to learn from their experiences to implement safeguards that will protect the most vulnerable while also allowing suffering Canadians access to their charter rights. Bill C-14 is, therefore, a carefully and deliberately crafted piece of legislation, which learns from the best practices of other governments to legalize medical assistance in dying.

As the Supreme Court made clear in paragraph 117 of the Carter decision, the risks associated with physician-assisted death can be limited through a carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards. Our government is committed to addressing the task put forth by the Supreme Court. We understand that this is a complex and emotional issue for many Canadians. As a result, we want to ensure that protecting the charter rights of some Canadians does not infringe upon the charter rights of others.

Bill C-14 provides strict criteria outlining precisely who is eligible for medical assistance in dying. Relatively strict guidelines are required when dealing with such a significant issue and eligibility is limited to three prescribed sets of conditions contained in Bill C-14.

Bill C-14 also includes safeguards protecting the personal convictions of health care providers. This is a fact that bears repeating as there seems to be some misunderstanding and confusion surrounding this issue. There is nothing in Bill C-14 that compels any medical practitioner to perform medical assistance in dying against their will.

As the Minister of Justice recently confirmed in her appearance before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on May 2, 2016, she said:

There is nothing in our legislation that would compel a medical practitioner to perform medical assistance in dying as you point out. The jurisdiction in terms of regulations falls to the provinces and territories.

The Minister of Health also addressed this issue in her remarks before the same committee and apart from reiterating that the issue of the conscience rights of health providers falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces, she confirmed that the federal government is already working with the provinces to develop a care coordination system for end-of-life care.

Finally, I believe the inclusion in Bill C-14 of a five-year review clause is another important safeguard. While I have the utmost confidence that the bill would address the issues presented to the government via the Carter decision, this mechanism would allow for future improvements and modifications, if need be.

Before concluding, allow me to also emphasize that Bill C-14 is part of a larger discussion around end-of-life health care. In that spirit, I am proud of the commitments our government has made toward palliative care, through a much-needed $3-billion investment over four years for home and palliative care.

I am confident that the vast majority of my constituents support medical assistance in dying and support Bill C-14. I urge my colleagues in the House to support the bill as well. By boldly, yet responsibility, reacting to the Carter decision, our government has created a workable and pragmatic national framework that would allow us to closely collaborate with the provinces and territories.

Bill C-14 marks the beginning of a new era. By addressing the expanded charter rights laid out by the Carter decision, this legislation would provide Canadians access to a long-overdue right.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that he was very confident that the majority of his constituents would support his position on Bill C-14. I actually sent a survey to every one of the 45,000 homes in my riding and got the opposite result. As a matter of fact, 65% of the respondents are opposed to Bill C-14 and 35% are in favour of it.

I wonder if he would be willing to do that in his riding just to confirm what he is stating in the House of Commons.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, the reason I said that is that I have had plenty of opportunities to speak to various constituents. What I can say is that after having spoken to many constituents, they understood the context within which the bill has been adopted. They appreciate full well that the Supreme Court considered this issue. They also understand full well that many consultations went on and that what resulted from those consultations was Bill C-14.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am tabling, in both official languages, the government's response to Questions Nos. 80 and 81.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued not so much just with what was in the member for Willowdale's speech, but with what was not in his speech. The fact is that this Parliament is now operating under time allocation on what he called a complex and sensitive issue, which I agree with.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the government would take away the goodwill, the working together approach that we have taken from the start of this issue. We had a multi-partisan approach, an all-party committee to design the legislation and to move it through the House and proceed with it in a sensible way, which is deserving of something so important. This government came in and used time allocation to shut down debate and discussion in this place, and over this issue in particular.

The previous government abused this tactic, which his party decried. His friend from Winnipeg made many speeches on it. Now the Liberals come in as a new government, in these sunny ways, and on a charter rights issue the first tendency of the government is to take away that goodwill of the parties working together for what Canadians want, which is a bill that balances the rights.

The bill has some serious flaws in it. The member's own chair of the committee has recognized the problems with the bill. The Senate has recognized problems with it. The constitutional lawyers that moved the Carter decision forward to the Supreme Court have pointed out to the government that Ms. Carter herself would not have access to the service under this bill. These are legitimate concerns.

Rather than have the fulsome debate, the Liberal Party has chosen to go back to tendencies that were abused by the Conservative Party and that Canadians rejected in the last election. For the life of me, I cannot understand why.

Why not allow Parliament to discuss this? Why just ignore the fact that his government just now brought in a time allocation measure to shut down Parliament's ability to do what it is here to do, and that is to speak on behalf of the people we represent?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the member that this a very complex issue. What we do see in the legislation is a very balanced approach. Of course, every single individual in the House understands that certain issues that may have been of concern to them were not fully addressed. However, that is what a national legislation is all about.

On the issue of having a sensible approach to debating this very complex and important issue in the House, I have heard for several days that every single member who would like to speak has been afforded that opportunity. In fact, it would appear to me, since I was watching this debate very closely, that there were numerous members who had more than one occasion to address issues that were of concern to them.

Lastly, allow me to inform you that of course this will now be the subject of input as it goes before committee, and it will be returning to the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am sure the hon. member did not mean me, in talking to the House.

I just want to remind all members that when they are speaking that they speak through the Speaker, as is protocol, not directly across the floor.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to speak to this important bill on behalf of my constituents.

As a member of the House for 19 years, I have had many opportunities to consult my constituents about this, and they are deeply concerned about what we are doing here today.

Let me begin by amplifying comments we just heard about the unfortunate application of the guillotine of time allocation and shutting down debate at second reading of this hugely consequential bill.

As I said in this place an hour ago, I understand that from time to time governments must use time allocation in Parliament to address critical urgent issues, such as back-to-work legislation and national emergencies, and to prevent opposition filibusters from unreasonably stalling the government's legislative agenda. I understand that, but this is a different kind of issue. This issue is different in kind but not in degree from those normal prudential matters with which this House normally deals.

Let us be clear, the bill authorizes the taking of human life. I would argue, there is no greater power that could be exercised by this legislature than the authorization of the taking of human life.

That is why there is an ancient convention in this and other Westminster-style parliaments, other democratic legislatures, that on such matters of the most profound moral conscience two conventions apply: first, that all members should vote freely; and second, that all members should be able to speak freely.

Here we have a government that, based on media reports, was very close to violating the first one of those conventions in seeking to whip its own members to vote on this matter of moral conscience, and now we have a government that is violating the second ancient Westminster democratic convention, empowering members to speak their conscience, to reflect the convictions of their constituents, on a matter that could not be more grave.

We will hear lots of political noise about different governments that have used time allocation, but I hearken back to 1969 in this place when the father of the current Prime Minister brought forward the omnibus justice legislation that touched on very profound moral questions, including abortion, and there was no application of time allocation.

I hearken back to 1976. In the free vote and debate in this place on capital punishment, there was no limitation of debate. I reflect back to the difficult debates in this place in 1988 and 1989 about unborn human life, and again, no application of time allocation. Indeed, I believe when the former Liberal government brought forward the Civil Marriage Act in 2005, a matter of profound moral conscience, although perhaps not as grave in terms of human life, it was also unrestricted in terms of debate.

I want to put down that marker that we are crossing two Rubicons here today: first, in violating these ancient parliamentary conventions; and second, in authorizing the taking of human life.

On the substance of the matter, let me first reflect. We throw around a lot of terms here euphemistically, and whenever one hears the application of euphemistic language to matters as grave as the taking of human life, one should be concerned.

We need only reflect on the history of the 20th century, what Saint John Paul II referred to as the century of tears, the century when the taking of human life became industrialized. In fact, we mark today Yom HaShoah when we recall the sacred memory of the six million European Jews lost in the Holocaust, following the euphemistic application of language to dehumanize the Jewish people.

Aldous Huxley, the great British novelist in his novel Brave New World, in 1932, gave us a perfect depiction of what the euphemistic application of language to life and death questions can result in: the normalization, the banalization of the taking of human life.

I believe we see that in the very title of this bill. What was commonly known in the English language for centuries as euthanasia is referred to in this bill with the euphemistic phrase, “physician-assisted dying”.

First let me challenge that, so we understand the nature of this debate. Dying is a passive exercise and killing is an active exercise. When we use the word killing, it is bracing and disturbing. It should be so, because the administration of a drug or other medical means purposely to end human life is an act of volition. In the language of formal ethics, it is the teleological of that; the end purpose of the administration of that poison, that life-ending medical intervention, is to end life. In literal terms, it is a decision to kill.

However, that is radically different from assisting people in dying, which palliative care practitioners do with great dignity every single day. Let us not begin this debate in confusing these two radically different moral concepts.

When I was in university in San Francisco nearly 30 years ago, I volunteered occasionally at a hospice established by Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity, primarily to assist men dying from complications as a result of HIV and AIDS. I saw the incredible, authentic compassion demonstrated by those women and palliative care practitioners in assisting in the death of those individuals. They were not seeking to hasten death. They were not seeking to end the lives of those in their care. They were seeking to comfort them.

To address another euphemistic abuse of language, we often hear the term compassion thrown about here. We all want to be compassionate. We all want to empathize with those who are facing pain at the end of their lives. However, that same Mother Teresa who established that hospice, and dozens of others around the world, reminded us that the etymological root of the word compassion comes from the Latin words com and passio, meaning to suffer with.

I would argue that presenting people with the idea of ending their lives is not to suffer with them, as palliative care practitioners and compassionate family members do every day. We must stand by them in legislation and programs, and provinces must, through their health care programs. If one good can come from this debate, I hope it will be a radical improvement in the entire field of palliative care.

However, we have heard from palliative care practitioners and from physicians who are so concerned by the implications of this bill that they are prepared to withdraw from the field of palliative care. I would ask us to proceed with great caution, which indeed reflects the ancient moral consensus of western civilization, dating all the way back to the 5th century BC. In the Hippocratic oath, Hippocrates said:

I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course.

There is great wisdom in that oath, which has been taken by physicians for millennia in the western tradition. I submit that we should not lightly disregard that great received wisdom, and I am profoundly concerned that the exceptions to the exceptions found in this legislation are radically inadequate to ensure a proper protection of the vulnerable, to ensure authentic compassion, and to ensure that we really do aid people in dying rather than presenting them with the slippery slope of killing.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his remarks. I appreciate the fact that he goes as far back as Aldous Huxley, and perhaps even Mortimer Adler, in terms of Adler's distinction between differences of kind and of degree. Like him, as someone who spent five years studying the classics and liberal arts and philosophy, I share some of his profound concerns. I have a couple of questions for him in response.

First of all, I would like him to explain to the House how moving the bill to committee, where it can be properly dealt with in terms of specific amendments from the opposition, government members, and the third party, is in any way prejudicial to improving it.

Second, could he explain to us how specifically our government has, according to his language, “not proceeded with caution”. He went on to say that we have been lightly disregarding the profound wisdom of apparently a millennia. I would like him to explain to the House how a general practitioner medical doctor as minister of health, a distinguished attorney and attorney general, who is a practising lawyer and crown prosecutor, two of whom have been seized with this issue for months, agonizing over the difficult choices to be made, trying to reflect Canadians' needs and desires, have lent short shrift to the importance of this issue in any form, any shape, in the bill?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the bill passing at second reading appears to be a foregone conclusion, so the committee will be engaged. I must express some concern with the imposition of what I think are quite unreasonable timelines on this sovereign democratic Parliament by the Supreme Court justices down the way, who initially imposed a timeline without apparently being conscious that we had an election that would take this place out of business for several months.

On the member's second point, I did not make an ad hominem attack against the integrity of those who have drafted the bill. I simply disagree with their analysis and their conclusions. Two cases in point regarding the alleged requirements in the bill are first, that two physicians must authorize the act of euthanasia. That seems to be wholly inadequate in a country of over 70,000 physicians. We could easily end up with a handful of Jack Kevorkian-style enthusiasts for euthanasia, using their physician's licence to imprudently authorize acts of euthanasia even when they ought not to do so.

Second, another requirement is that death be reasonably foreseeable, as it is for all of us. I believe that the restrictions in the bill are wholly inadequate to prevent the kinds of abuses about which we are all gravely concerned.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy, if not always agree with my friend from Calgary. I find he represents the point of view of socially conservative Canadians very well, and with great articulation. On two points, I have a question for him.

One is on the process that we are now in. Parliament is now under time allocation. That means that debate has been cut off by the government unilaterally, despite there being many and very good efforts to work across party lines on what is a complex and sensitive issue for all of us. This is the intervention of our own personal experiences as members of Parliament, our faith, our own personal morality, and the attempts we make to represent Canadians with our best courage and intelligence.

Only in the preamble of the bill is there any mention of palliative care whatsoever. In the budget, there are scant resources to bring in any sort of effort to help Canadians with palliative care issues. It is talked about, but never actually addressed and acted upon. I am wondering why it does not exist as some sort of more forceful, meaningful component of this conversation we are having today about a sensitive and important discussion about end of life for all Canadians.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, those are kind words from my honourable friend. However, let me first challenge the hon. member's characterization of my position as being the socially conservative position. In fact, I think it is the Canadian position.

It was the position of the Canadian judiciary until a year ago. It was the position of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Rodriguez decision. It was the position of the majority of members in this place in at least three votes that have occurred in my 19 years here, including the vast majority of members of the Liberal Party and many New Democrats, like the former member of Parliament Bill Blaikie.

I would submit that this is not an ideological or political issue. It is an issue on which people have honestly held, different convictions. However, let us not pigeonhole them in that.

In terms of time allocation, I agree with the member and I have already addressed that.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity 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).

Let me first thank the members who were part of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying for this bill and for their hard work. Their work showcased Parliament at its best, what it is capable of when parties put aside politics and the best interests of Canadians are at heart, and in particular when vulnerable Canadians are put at the forefront. I would also like to recognize the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, who are working diligently and endlessly on this issue.

Since the debate began, we have heard many moving and deeply personal stories. These are heartfelt sentiments, some that are so moving, as I listened to their stories it brought a lump to my throat. I thought about how wonderful it is that we have Canadian democracy in this very House, where every single member was supposed to have the opportunity to voice their opinion on this very important issue.

In my view, it is a shame that the government brought forward closure. I do think it is a shame. It was not necessary. I think we could have afforded every single member the opportunity to be heard and to offer their point of view on this important bill.

This bill before us today is one of great importance and significance to Canadians from all walks of life, from coast to coast to coast. Its subject is something that has touched countless Canadians, at least to a degree. Whether caring for an ill member of their family, providing support to a friend or colleague, caring for a loved one, or just contemplating their own wishes should they be in a situation where they are forced to deal with enduring and intolerable suffering, this is an issue that truly impacts all of us.

As this legislation is quite literally dealing with life and death, it is of the utmost importance that Parliament put the best legislation forward. The rights and self-determination of individuals must be supported while simultaneously ensuring that the most vulnerable people in society are protected from harm.

This balance must, and I believe can, be struck. There is no question that end-of-life decisions can be incredibly hard on families, whether the family member is dealing with a serious condition, or the surrounding families and loved ones are witnessing the pain and suffering of their loved one. For those doing the support work, it is deeply emotional and deeply personal.

Should a person ultimately determine that they would prefer to, as many call it, “die with dignity” on their own terms, the gravity of that decision itself is enough for a family and the individual to grapple with. Over the years, we have seen the struggles of families of individuals who are fighting for their right to die with dignity go through time-consuming and difficult court battles, from Sue Rodriguez to Ms. Kay Carter.

These individuals went through the court battle, not just for themselves, I believe, but for all Canadians who wish to have the right to choose to die with dignity. For that, I thank them and their families for their courage, and the courage they have shown to have their voices heard in perhaps the most trying and critical time in their lives.

While I have not been in a situation where one of my loved ones has had to endure this kind of pain, I have known people who have. At such a difficult time, one would think that the last thing these families would want to deal with is the additional stress and hardship imposed on them because Parliament did not have the courage to act.

Parliament has been given the task by the Supreme Court of Canada, based on the ruling known as the Carter decision. The court unanimously decided that Canadians who are suffering intolerably as a result of a “grievous and irremediable medical condition” have a charter-protected right to access medical assistance in dying. On June 6 of this year, a new law adhering to this decision needs to be in place or a legal vacuum will result.

The Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying spent considerable time listening to expert testimony and brought forward 21 recommendations in a legislative response to the Carter decision.

The very first question that needs to be answered on Bill C-14 is this: Does this legislation comply with the Carter decision? The special joint committee heard from some advocates and experts who stated that the bill would fall short. This could result in more lengthy court challenges, and more importantly, individuals, families, and medical professionals left navigating incredibly difficult decisions while operating in a legal gray area. In my view, to allow this situation to occur would mean nothing less than a failure of Parliament.

Kay Carter, one of the two women involved in the Supreme Court of Canada case, suffered excruciating and debilitating pain which left her wheelchair bound and unable to feed herself. Fully mentally and legally competent, and possessing a fierce independence, she sought the right to choose medical assistance in dying if her suffering became unbearable. However, her condition was not considered fatal, and because the final criteria in Bill C-14 for undergoing physician-assisted death is “natural death has become reasonably foreseeable”, many experts have noted that Kay Carter would have been denied access under Bill C-14.

Surely we must question how it could be if Bill C-14 was meant to address the Carter decision, that Kay Carter and others like her, who are legally competent and suffering from serious and incurable but non-fatal conditions, would not be granted that very right under this new law.

My question for the government is quite simple: What is behind the decision to use such different terminology than was used in the court ruling?

Bill C-14 is also silent on a practitioner's right to conscientious objection. Presumably this means the government is leaving it up to the provinces to work that out. Respectfully, the Supreme Court of Canada has tasked the federal government with crafting these laws. Leaving out something as important as practitioners having the right to conscientious objection and failing to meet the test of the Carter ruling, in my view, is a failure of Parliament to live up to its responsibility.

The special joint committee recommended that the government consider the topic of advance directives. While the court was silent on this as cognitive decline and therefore legal competence was not going to become an issue for the plaintiffs in the case, the Canadian public has been vocal about this. Experts appearing at committee stated that people dealing with these sorts of illnesses, such as Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia, will be left with no legal options.

My constituents of Vancouver East have brought this issue to my attention. A Vancouver East resident wrote, “Without the option to make advance requests for assisted dying, Canadians with dementia, or other degenerative illnesses that rob victims of their competence, will be effectively excluded from access.”

It is my belief that this completely goes against the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling on physician-assisted dying.

In going forward, I hope there will be changes to this legislation to bring it to the place where it is both Carter compliant and charter compliant.

I have no doubt that my colleague the member for Victoria will continue to work diligently and consult on this very matter with experts and people affected.

I would like to point out that while the bill in its preamble cites the importance of palliative care, I hope that the government will actually deliver on palliative care as well.

It should be all of our obligation to make sure that these choices are afforded to Canadians and that in their choices, they are supported with every effort to make that choice a reality.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to address a number of the points the member has raised, first and foremost, the member acknowledges that the reason this bill is before us is that nine Supreme Court judges unanimously indicated that we need to change the law. That is the reason we have the legislation before us today.

It is interesting that in listening to members speak, sometimes a member will say that we have gone too far and other members will say that we have not gone far enough. We can compare the last two speeches as an example. That tells me there is a good balance, but we are always open to improvements as we see this bill go to committee. This government is open to improving legislation if the need can be demonstrated at the committee stage in particular.

The member made reference to the importance of palliative care. The Prime Minister and this government truly care about palliative care. Over the last number of months there has been a tangible commitment made by this government in the budget of substantial financial contributions in and around $3 billion, not to mention the commitment to the health care accord.

My last point is the issue of affording members an opportunity to speak. It is important for us to note that last night opposition members were afforded the opportunity to speak endlessly past midnight if need be, but it was the opposition that said no to that. Why does the member believe the official opposition and the NDP did not want to sit past midnight in order to allow members to address this very important issue?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government was elected on the notion that it would do things differently. The Liberals said that during the campaign and post campaign. We are in this House debating a bill with respect to a charter rights issue. The member himself acknowledged the significant importance for this bill to be debated properly in the House, yet the government brought in closure after two and a half days of debate. Why did the government have to do that? Is saying no to a debate past midnight somehow a justification to say, “Gee, we should bring in closure, then”? Does it make sense for a civilized society to be debating past midnight to continue on this work? Why would the government bring in closure after two and a half days?

My understanding is that the government House leader made an agreement with the opposition House leaders on when the government would end the debate on this, yet the government reneged on that. Why did the government do that?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I sat through all of the debate into the wee hours of the morning waiting for my chance to speak. We are talking about life and death. This could be the single most important decision we make as a Parliament perhaps in decades preceding us and decades moving forward. Every one of us bears the burden of the decision we make moving forward. It was the hon. member for Don Valley West, the chair of the very committee that was tasked with investigating this, who said that he guessed it was a good enough bill. However, I am not sure “good enough” is enough when we are talking about life and death.

When we are talking about debate, not one member from the Liberal government stood up beyond 4:00 p.m. When I sat through the discussion earlier on, there were members on the other side who were either for or against it, and I welcome their conversation. However, not one member was able or allowed to stand up.

Now the bill will go to committee, and the debate will be finished. Is the member confident enough that we will see a bill that is not just good enough but the right bill for this serious issue?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, all of that rests on the committee and the membership of that committee and whether or not they will bring the spirit of co-operation and collaboration to the table and be open to hearing from experts and open to bringing forward amendments to fix this bill. I am hopeful of that. I have no doubt that the NDP member for Victoria will work tirelessly to ensure that takes place. However, that is yet to be seen. He is only one member, but it rests with the other members of that committee as well.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to note that after two and a half days of debate, I will be one of the last few speakers of the one-quarter parliamentarians who were actually allotted the opportunity to speak at second reading of Bill C-14. However, I do not want to waste my time raging against that particular issue, because we have an important debate in front of us.

I have watched with envy when some of my colleagues have been able to articulate a really clear position on the legislation, both for and against. Truly, it is going to be with no ease that I will make my vote tonight. It is a very difficult decision for many.

I want to start with a quick reflection on some of the facts about this case and really the two cases that were with the Supreme Court of Canada which ultimately ended up in very different results.

I have heard again and again that the public sees Sue Rodriguez and Gloria Taylor as remarkably similar in terms of the struggle they were having with ALS, which of course is a horrific degenerating neurological disease. Notwithstanding those very similar fact patterns, the 2015 Carter decision did not follow the 1993 precedent and, indeed, was really a completely contradictory position which struck down a 21-year-old law which declared physician-assisted suicide as an indictable offence.

It is an age-old argument that the court should interpret laws and not make them. I actually do acknowledge that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires interpretation by our courts, but I would also like to argue that once an interpretation is given, the offering of consistent rulings makes sense to the general public.

As societal views change on any particular issue, it is the responsibility of the legislative branch to adapt to changing public values.

I do want to reject the statements that many have made that Parliament was not willing to consider the issue. In 2010, there was a vote. I remember that my colleague Steven Fletcher spoke very eloquently. He had a private member's bill. I have no doubt we would have dealt with this issue again in this Parliament.

I also want to note that Quebec and many countries took a long time, six years, 10 years, to craft a piece of legislation to talk to their communities.

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision affects every Canadian, and every member of Parliament, I believe, had a responsibility to talk to their constituents in detail.

I did send a letter to every household in my riding right after the Supreme Court of Canada decision. This was consultation before the last election. Of the over 1,000 responses I received, approximately 70% recognized there were some cases where they believed that physician-assisted suicide might be important.

Then we had the actual legislation. I made a commitment and said that if anyone wanted to join me in a round table, I would give them every minute of the last constituency week.

As members can imagine, we had round table after round table, including round tables with physicians and seniors groups. They were powerful discussions. They were divisive discussions. People had very different perspectives, but I think there are three areas that they did agree upon.

Palliative care has to be improved. There is no question about that. I did some quick calculations. That $30 billion over four years, in terms of a home care budget in the health authority I represent, is actually a pittance in terms of their being able to change a palliative care system.

Again, everyone agreed that there is a slippery slope and that there is no confidence that we are not going to head down that slippery slope. As a result, two recommendations were made.

One recommendation was that two physicians may make a decision but a social worker and a psychologist should inform the physicians' decision, or alternatively, there should be a judicial review process. I think those were important considerations. They absolutely 100% believe that the protection of health conscience rights of our providers must be in federal legislation.

I will reflect on a few comments from those opposed and from those who were supportive, and then I will conclude.

People opposed to the legislation were not opposed to any technical pieces of the legislation but because they believed we were talking about murder, a profound diminishment of respect for life, and that vulnerable individuals would choose to end their life if they felt they were a burden.

I would like to quote a physician who sent me an email. He said, “I certainly have some concerns with the proposed legislation and would not feel comfortable in bringing about a patient's death. That is not why I went into medicine. I am actively involved in palliative care and believe this is a compassionate and crucial service to people near the end of their lives. Sometimes it's messy and life spills all over the floor. It seems to me that sometimes families want to avoid the challenge of lovingly caring for these individuals. Our society likes tidy, convenient outcomes. It seems to me that this is frequently the motive underlying assisted death. I would take great exception to legislation that would force me to refer someone on for assisted suicide against my conscience. I would certainly explain to the patient that there may be other physicians that would be willing to assist them and taking their life”.

That was from one of the very reputable physicians in the community that I represent. Again, in these round tables there were community members both in support and against the legislation.

We had an 80-year-old woman come to a session who wanted that option available to her. She did not have to worry about family and said that it was strictly something that she wanted for herself.

Another constituent, who joined us, talked about being with her stepdad and dad when they died. She talked about the very awful, tragic end that both of them had in spite of the best palliative care that was available. She expressed how awful it was.

I think she would have rejected the physician's characterization that she would choose that end because it was tidy or because she did not have the compassion. She was clearly willing to do whatever she needed to do to help her stepdad and dad, but felt that they needed better options.

Probably one of the most emotional conversations was when someone said, “I respect your opinion on this issue, and I know that you believe it is wrong, but can you please respect mine?” Again, that dialogue was happening where there was a request of respecting one's opinion.

The legislation needs some work and certainly the commitment around palliative care is very minimal. We must have protection for the conscience rights of our health providers in the legislation. As well, we really need to reflect on providing protection for the vulnerable who feel they are a burden.

I will support the legislation at second reading for three reasons. First, I believe that ultimately it will serve Canadians better than having a legal void. Second, indications are that a significant number, a majority, in my riding do support assisted suicide and euthanasia. Finally, everyone reflects personally, and if I ever had family members with ALS or another devastating disease who said that they wanted to lie on their bed, listen to their music, look at the mountains, rather than palliative sedation at the end of their time, and that's what they choose, how could I not support them in their request to escape intolerable pain and suffering?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for her passionate speech, her experience on this file, being a medical professional, and the work that she did with her constituents to come up with the decision to support this important bill at second reading, and taking it to committee stage.

With her professional medical experience and passion, would she be able to convince members on the other side to support this bill, so that we have something concrete in place to help the many individuals who she and other members have compassion for?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I respect that every member of the House has been dealing with this very difficult issue in their own way. They will vote tonight based on a whole number of factors. Again, the votes at report stage and third reading stage will reflect what comes out of committee.

We are all talking about this important issue and reflecting on the grave responsibility that has been given to us.