Debates of Oct. 19th, 2020

Criminal Code

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Beauport—Limoilou for her speech, and I would like to congratulate her for highlighting the autonomy of people with disabilities.

I would just like to add that the two people at the centre of the Truchon and Gladu ruling that we are discussing today had disabilities themselves, and the judge recognized their autonomy in making choices.

We have heard several times that our government made a mistake by not appealing the Truchon and Gladu ruling to the Supreme Court. When a provincial superior court decision is well developed, carefully analyzed, rigorous and clearly articulated, should we appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, or should we take action, as our government is doing, to protect the dignity and autonomy of vulnerable people?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I am not a lawyer. However, in this case, a superior court handed down a ruling to address an unfair and unjust situation, where a right was taken away from people who were supposed to be treated equally. In my humble opinion, continuing the legal proceedings would only have added to the impression that these people are separate and different. They are full citizens, and they are entitled to be given our consideration and included in our reflections.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that, in her opinion, there does not seem to be two classes of Canadians coming out of this. In the previous bill, there were two requirements: grievous and irremediable suffering, and reasonably foreseeable death. This bill would remove the reasonably foreseeable death requirement, therefore creating two classes of citizens. An individual who is suicidal and has no grievous and irremediable suffering would be given the host of services Canada provides to prevent suicide. A person who has a grievous and irremediable issue would be eligible for MAID.

Does the member not see that this bill would create two classes of citizens?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Nowhere in the bill does it say that someone who is suicidal can access MAID. On the contrary, the bill states that someone with a degenerative disability would have 90 days to reflect on their decision and would have the necessary support to ensure that they are not in a state of distress. The necessary safeguards are there to ensure that someone in a state of distress would get the help they need. Furthermore, the request may be denied if the assessment indicates that the problem lies elsewhere.

These are the same reasons for which mental health is not covered. We must start by providing support for mental health problems without giving people with mental illness access to MAID. A good assessment and good support are the safeguards in this bill.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague said that there is no way that a handicapped or disabled person could be given medical assistance in dying without their consent because, of course, they would write it on a piece of paper. Would the member not agree that there could be a number of factors put in there, from being put under pressure to feeling like they are a burden on society? Would the member not agree that there need to be protections to ensure that people are not being affected by other factors to ask for medical assistance in dying?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have said it once and I will say it again: Yes, it is important to ensure that individuals make a free, informed decision and that they not be coerced. That is why the bill calls for a 90-day waiting period and support from a social worker.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, before I get started, I will let you know I am splitting my time with the member for Markham—Stouffville.

Today, I have the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-7 from my riding in Guelph. Before I get going on the debate, I would like to recognize that Guelph is situated on the ancestral homelands of the Anishinabe people, specifically the traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

I am proud our government has brought forward a bill that proposes changes that respond to the Superior Court of Quebec's September 2019 Truchon ruling. The proposed changes were informed by concerns and issues raised during consultations earlier this year in discussions with provincial, territorial and indigenous partners. As a result, we have had careful consideration of past experience with MAID in Canada.

I recognize medical assistance in dying is a deeply personal and complex issue. I have heard extensive feedback from my constituents on this topic as recently as this morning. During today's debate, we are hearing very personal stories from MPs that are very similar to what we heard when we first brought forward the legislation in Bill C-14. There are arguments for and against, which we need to recognize and look at.

Some of my constituents who have shared their support for these amendments and the swift passage of this bill have noted to me the importance of dying with dignity, as well as consistent and equal accessibility for all Canadians, as part of what our legislation needs to provide.

Earlier this year, I had a constituent reach out to me and share her personal story regarding medical assistance in dying. She told me that she felt very strongly about this issue because her husband of 56 years, John, had passed last December after four years of battling an illness and how appreciative she was that we had taken some first steps toward addressing these issues. She told me about the vibrant man John was, with a big heart, a successful career and an impressive education. She told me they had conversations about getting old together and how they would deal with aging, but these discussions did not include suffering or what might happen if the pain became too great. As John's illness progressed, he was moved into a long-term care facility where he spent the rest of his life. It was there that she saw so many others who were unable to be independent. She was saddened to see there was no dignity for these people, or for her husband John, as they were no longer able to look after their own personal needs. I saw this myself with my mother as she went through care in her last 10 years of life. The story of my constituent was one that conveys the importance of providing a diverse end-of-life option for Canadians that will help them provide the right decisions to be able to end their days with dignity, comfort and peace of mind.

Of course, there are two sides to this debate. I have heard from other people and received a lot of feedback that they understand we are coming at this as a deeply personal and sensitive topic for everyone, but are concerned these new amendments may impact the disability community, something we have discussed in the debate today, and the conscience rights of medical practitioners or our work toward improving palliative care. They all really do stitch together. While I am sympathetic to these concerns, I am also pleased to see our new legislation strikes the right balance of autonomy and protection of vulnerable people. This is thanks to many disability advocates who have participated actively throughout the consultation process, including specific round tables that focused on issues faced by the disability community. As was mentioned earlier in the debate, 300,000 people had input throughout the month of January 2020 to help us get to where we are today.

Additionally, our law specifically acknowledges the conscience rights of health care providers and the role they play in providing medical assistance in dying. These new amendments do not make changes to these rights and I know we will continue to work with provinces and territories to support access to medical assistance in dying while also respecting the personal convictions of health care providers.

However, the most common concern I have heard from my constituents is the need to prioritize palliative care over medical assistance in dying.

It is really the end-of-life care that we are talking about in both cases. In palliative care, Canadians are approaching the end of their life, and they deserve to receive care in the setting of their choice and to live out their days in comfort and dignity. They also deserve the freedom to make this fundamental decision about life and death without fear of their personal choice being obstructed by politics or government.

In Guelph, we are very blessed to have a wonderful palliative care facility that has been growing over the years as people recognize this as an option towards the end-of-life care that they are looking for.

However, 70% of Canadians are left without access to adequate palliative care. We have the responsibility to act in the interests of patients and their families, which is why our government supports access to both palliative care and medical assistance in dying. End-of-life issues are as diverse as Canadians themselves, and these issues also change throughout the course of medical needs and procedures that are available.

It is our responsibility as a government to provide as many options as possible for Canadians, so that they can take these deeply personal choices and make them on their own. That is why our government has worked collaboratively with partners, such as the provinces and territories, to develop a framework on palliative care. To support this framework, our government is implementing a targeted action plan that will help to improve access to palliative care for underserved populations; support families, health care providers and communities; and look at the funding that is needed to be able to execute our plans.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Hospice Wellington and its executive director, Pat Stuart for the amazing work they do to support our most vulnerable citizens, including through palliative care.

I would also like to thank the constituents of Guelph who have personally reached out to me over the last several months to share their feedback, suggestions and personal stories around medical assistance in dying. I look forward to continuing to engage with my colleagues on this important subject and with my constituents, so that we can work to create a system that is responsive to the needs of patients, and creates an environment that can create comfort and reassurance for patients and their families.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for his perspective on this issue. Indeed, I want to thank all of the members from both sides of the aisle who have shared on this deeply important topic.

My concern, and the member raised it, as did several of the previous speakers, is about the concerns expressed by the most vulnerable in our society, the disabled. They wrote, one month after the Truchon decision, to the Attorney General, 72 groups of them, pleading that this case be appealed to the Supreme Court for several reasons, that would buy time for a proper consultation process as part of the review, and that their voices would be further heard.

Could my hon. colleague please comment on why this process has been chosen superior over the voices and wishes of 72 representatives of the disabled community?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington, where we also have family members. As we have these discussions, we do see the cross-ties across Canada as we look at these issues.

The disability community is involved with the consultation process and will continue to be involved. We are reacting to the Superior Court ruling from Quebec, where we do need to look at some amendments. When we can get those in place, we will do the further review of Bill C-14, which will include the broader issues the member has mentioned.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will continue on in this vein.

I am concerned that the bill creates two classes of Canadian citizens: one, where if they are attempting suicide, suicide prevention measures will be given to them; and, two, another class of citizens who have a grievous and irremediable condition and who will be offered MAID.

Is the member not concerned with the two classes of Canadian citizens?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, similar to colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I do not see this as an issue of dividing Canadians, I see this as an issue to be able to reach all types of Canadians, coming from different experiences and different health needs. We will be addressing the needs of all Canadians through this bill, as well as through ongoing legislative review of this legislation.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague is a sincere man. That is why I was very disturbed by something I thought I heard him say, about some people at the end stage of their lives, that their lives were simply not dignified. Who is he to say that their lives were not dignified?

Would the member state unequivocally that all human lives, regardless of what condition or how they are at the end of their lives, are always dignified?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I apologize if I left that impression with the hon. member. All life is dignified in Canada.

When my mother was passing away in Winnipeg I spent her last few days with her. Family members were looking at the question of how long to keep the machine going. My mom, in a moment of lucidity, came back to me when my brothers and sisters were out of the room and she said to me, “It's part of my decision as well, dear.”

The people who make those decisions have to be dignified and respected, so that their decisions are included in the legislation. In fact, this legislation is central to their decisions and not the decisions of family members or others.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, what concerns me is that I have been in the House for many years, and twice now we have had to respond to court decisions in regard to end-of-life legislation.

I brought forward, in the previous Parliament, a motion for a palliative care strategy that received support from every member of Parliament. I heard many of my Liberal colleagues get up to say great things about it and then we never saw any action on it. The concern I have is that, in all of the work I have done with palliative care groups across the country and with people I knew very closely who have died, the will to live is so incredibly strong.

What we do not have ever, it seems, at the federal level is the willingness to make sure that we have standards in place to ensure the dignity of people in their final days and months, to ensure there are proper pain medications, supports and strategies in place. Here we are once again talking about amending the right-to-die legislation, but we have never ever gotten serious about responding to Parliament's call for support for people who want to die with dignity at their own time through palliative care.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not mean to talk down to the hon. member across the way because I would not do that.

The courts make decisions that then come back to Parliament so that we can review the decisions we have made on legislation to see whether further amendments are needed. This is a case where a court is telling us that there are further amendments needed. We agree with the court and are going forward with Bill C-7, so that we can make the amendments to try to satisfy the needs of the—

Support for Local Artists

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, during this time of COVID crisis, when many of us have been doing our part to socially distance, we have found solace and comfort in the arts. Music, poetry, television and literature have all become more meaningful in this challenging time, offering escape and relief.

Artists have and will always be the first to stand up and volunteer their talents for a good cause, but now as many artists struggle, we need to step up and give them our support.

On that note, I would like to highlight the amazing performances of the Celtic Colours International Festival, which celebrates Cape Breton's living Celtic culture and artistic partnerships. The Celtic tradition of music, dance and storytelling lives on through this festival, which has come to be a celebration of Cape Breton Island's living culture.

This year, the festival was made free to stream by all Canadians. Celtic Colours speaks to the resilience of our musicians, of their love of the craft in difficult times and their willingness to support their communities even when they are facing their own hardships. I would like to commend them and ask all Canadians to do their part to support their local artists whenever and wherever they can.

Small Business Week

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, this week is Small Business Week in Canada. This is a time to highlight and celebrate what small businesses and entrepreneurs are doing for our country to make our lives better and our economy stronger. The year 2020 has been a real challenge for small businesses, with COVID-19 proving to be as much a financial crisis as a health crisis.

Despite all those challenges, entrepreneurs across the country are stepping up to the challenge, including people in my riding, whom I had the honour of visiting recently. I am thinking of Amy at Wildflowers Style & Co., Samantha at Oxygen Yoga and Fitness, Julia at the Bone & Biscuit and Stephanie at Mattu's Coffee & Tea. These people are standing up to the challenge.

I thank them for their courage. I thank them for their determination, and I ask them to please keep leading the charge.

Donation to University of Toronto

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, Winston Churchill said that we make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.

Today I rise to honour two Canadians for what they have given. Recently, James and Louise Temerty donated $250 million to the University of Toronto faculty of medicine through their foundation. This donation is the largest ever to a Canadian university.

The Temerty Foundation gift will support advances in machine learning in medicine and biomedical research, commercialization and entrepreneurship, equity and accessibility in medical education, the creation of a new state-of-the-art faculty of medicine building and much more.

James Temerty was born in Ukraine and came to Canada as a child after World War II. From humble beginnings, he has built a very successful entrepreneurial and business career. James and Louise have been generous philanthropists for many years, giving to a range of causes including the Royal Ontario Museum, the Royal Conservatory of Music, SickKids hospital, Sunnybrook Foundation and much more.

On behalf of our community and all Canadians, I would like to thank James and Louise for the difference they have made in the lives of countless Canadians and people around the world. I thank them for what they have given.

Canadian Mining Companies

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to participate in a webinar about Canadian mining companies' shameful treatment of people in the Cordillera region of the Philippines and of the activists fighting for them.

I was there to explain what kind of work a parliamentarian can do in such situations. It was abundantly clear to the other participants and me that, thanks to COVID-19, regimes and corporations around the world are working hand in hand, quite happy that nobody is talking about their abuses, and that Canada is turning a blind eye. Never has it been more urgent for Parliament to do more to hold mining companies to account and punish them.

Canada can no long knowingly serve as a port of convenience for these multinationals. As parliamentarians, we must all stand and condemn abuses perpetrated behind the facade of the maple leaf. It is unacceptable. It is unworthy of the people we represent.

Travellers to Canada

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Immigration for taking the input of MPs and bringing the necessary changes to expand the categories of travellers allowed into Canada.

In my riding of Don Valley East, I had numerous requests during the pandemic for compassionate and family reunification. The minister has listened and is enabling spouses and fiancés to be reunited, people to visit their dying relatives and international students to come. With the safeguards that have been in place, we know that the importation of COVID-19 cases is less than 3%.

I urge my constituents and everyone to check out the changes and note that we are not easing restrictions, but are being compassionate. We are doing that in co-operation with the provinces and territories and keeping Canadians safe.

Festivals in Haldimand—Norfolk

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for the past 16 years, I have had the honour of representing one of the best places to live in Canada and, boy, do we know how to celebrate. Haldimand—Norfolk hosts dozens of festivals, parades and fall fairs, and multiple community suppers, fish fries and barbecues. We even boast a Canada Day parade that has happened every year since Confederation, that is, until this year, when organizers of these events were forced to make the difficult decision to either cancel or move to a virtual format.

While we could not see familiar faces at the fall fairs this year, I am looking forward to the future when we can come together, enjoy a Dixie dog and, personally, get to see an entire parade from start to finish for the first time in 16 years.

Women's History Month

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, October is Women's History Month in Canada, a time to learn about the lives of our great-grandmothers, grandmothers, mothers and sisters, and their contributions to our communities and country.

We should know the women who built our country. We should learn about their history and achievements. When history has erased women's contributions, we need to uncover them, share women's stories and name unnamed women in archives and family photos, because they have shaped Canada's history. We must tell the stories of women through school, post-secondary education and beyond to ensure that they inspire this generation and the ones that follow.

Let us recognize all women's contributions and celebrate every woman pioneer, trailblazer and rule-breaker who fought to take her rightful place, who fought for each hard-won right and who continues to fight for a better today and tomorrow. We stand on the shoulders of giants.

Foreign Affairs

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are great at preaching to others, but not so good at taking action themselves.

From the day he took office, the Prime Minister has done anything and everything to avoid talking about China. However, the threat is real. Whether it is about Huawei, the illegal detention of the two Michaels or the aggressive statement by the Chinese ambassador regarding people fleeing Hong Kong, the Prime Minister does nothing. Worse yet, he said he admired the Chinese dictatorship. It is not surprising, then, that the Prime Minister is using Canadians' money to support infrastructure projects in China instead of promoting projects here in Canada.

It is high time we took a stand. Backing down from China will only weaken Canada and our economy at this time of pandemic. Failing to deal with China sends a signal to the international community that Canada is weak and vulnerable. Canadians deserve better.

Birthday Congratulations

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, recently I had the pleasure to join in the celebration of one of my oldest constituents, Mr. George Beardshaw, who turned 97 last month. Because of the pandemic, traditional festivities had to be changed, but the warmth, generosity and love inspired by George was abundantly clear. A classic car tribute five blocks long had been organized by his loved ones, while the drivers honked a happy birthday.

George has led an amazing life. At the age of 18, he joined the Queens Own Rifles to fight in the Second World War to help liberate Europe. He was also part of the home child program, where orphaned and impoverished children from the U.K. were sent to Canada. As we know now, the children were often used as cheap labour on farms and in private homes. The 115,000 home children who came to Canada, like George, have given so much to their adopted country.

I know my colleagues will join me in wishing George, a veteran of so much, the happiest of birthdays in these most difficult of times.

Status of Women

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, women are the majority of those unemployed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, an issue that has not gone unnoticed by the status of women committee.

Recently the committee learned of the numerous negative impacts women have faced because of the Liberal government's failure to follow through with its commitment that all programs and funding would go through a gender-based analysis. Unfortunately, because of the Prime Minister's latest ethical lapse in judgment, we were not able to present our report and recommendations to the government to help address and alleviate their concerns and to find ways to help get women back into the workforce.

Canadians are looking for stability and leadership. Women cannot afford to wait while the Liberals continue to play political games. Canadians can be assured that under a Conservative government, we will continue to put forward constructive ideas and solutions in addressing the impacts of COVID-19 on women in Canada.