Debates of Oct. 21st, 2020

Criminal Code

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I absolutely concur that we have incredible people working in the health professions who truly walk through the darkest of times with people, providing them care and hope, and providing help for families as well as those who are in that valley of decision.

I think the hon. member would concur with me that these types of care providers deserve a lot of credit. Also, I believe they need to be assured that they can practice their conscience and be able to carry out their personal beliefs in their profession, and not feel threatened or feel that they have to do something that would be opposed to their conscience.

I know many health care professionals who do such excellent work. I know that is a value that is so important to them, being able to exercise their conscience. I do agree with the hon. member about their important role.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I join my colleague opposite in thanking and congratulating the member for sharing that touching story. It really makes us think.

I want to point out that there is a difference between suicide and suicidal tendencies and what someone suffering from a serious, irreversible illness has to deal with. As my colleague mentioned, we obviously need to create preventive safeguards and very clear regulations on these details. As everyone knows, the devil is in the details.

However, I did not hear my colleague's opinion on the question. I want to know whether he is satisfied with the measures in this bill that will be included in future MAID legislation.

Does he feel reassured that the framework for people with mental illness is sufficient? The bill must not include depression or a problem other than a terminal physical illness.

Would the member be okay with such legislation regulating MAID?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, again, understanding the sensitivities around this piece of legislation, what is important is that there are not enough adequate safeguards within the current bill. I believe there are inadequate supports as it relates to persons struggling with mental health related issues. That is an area where we need much more support and much more awareness. There needs to be great improvement in the area of palliative care and support for those who are aging, and those who are facing extremely difficult times and choices.

There is not adequate support in the bill to ensure that there are alternatives and options being clearly presented, as well as the proper time to reflect. The bill, in its current form, diminishes the safeguards that need to be in place for a decision of such finality. We need to do everything we can as parliamentarians to ensure the safeguards are augmented in this bill.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to speak to this bill, Bill C-7, in its current form, mostly because I did not support the original bill, Bill C-14, from four years ago. I did not support it because I felt that it did not reflect the intent of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in Carter. I also felt, as a family physician who practised medicine for 20 years, that it did not act in the best interest of my patients.

As a family physician, I walked with my patients through many things: through the joys of having a baby, of giving birth and of marriage, but also through the difficult, challenging and painful times when they struggled with excruciating incurable diseases and with knowing they were going to die because of a terminal illness. They had to work with their families, who may or may not have wanted them to go through with this. I held their hand and walked with them, so this bill has a very personal meaning. That is why I am pleased to speak to it now.

I like the bill in this form in many ways, though there are a couple of things that have not happened in it that I would like to see. The first thing I am pleased with is that it removes the clause saying natural death has to be reasonably foreseeable. It was very difficult for physicians to understand what exactly that meant. If the clause meant only people who were going to die soon, it did not reflect the Carter decision by the Supreme Court, because it did not look at issues of incurable disease or intractable pain and suffering. This bill addresses that, I think, in that it is distinguishing what we mean by natural death becoming reasonably foreseeable. In other words, I think it recognizes that if a natural death, because of a disease or a terminal illness, is going to be foreseeable within maybe a week or two, then a person does not need to go through the 10-day reflection period that was asked for earlier on. However, if it is a longer period of time, maybe four months or so, a person can continue to reflect on whether this is what they really need.

I also like that it has brought back something called advance directives. It is interesting to note that long before medical assistance in dying was considered, physicians had advance directives. This is at the heart of a doctor-patient relationship. They would sit down with patients and go through all of the things patients faced and their concerns, especially if they were diagnosed with a serious and terminal illness, and they would say what they would like to do if something happened. That would be in writing, between the doctor and the patient. I was present when families of patients who were dying, in great pain and suffering and under the deep stress of this, would debate the decisions they had made earlier with their physician. Putting this back in means that we are respecting patients' desires. Regardless of their mental capacity at the time of their dying, we are respecting what they originally wanted, if they still want it, not having other people rule on their decision.

Inherent in everything I dealt with regarding patients who were terminally ill or had an intractable and incurable disease is that they wanted to die with dignity. Dying with dignity cannot be understated. Dying with dignity means that people can choose how they die, where they die and the manner in which they live with the suffering of dying and the mental anguish of leaving their loved ones. This is a deeply personal thing that patients face. It is impacted by their religion, it is impacted by their ethics and it is impacted by their family situation. It therefore has to be done on a case-by-case basis, and having an advanced directive with a physician is always a really important thing in that regard. That had been removed in the last bill and I am glad to see it back. It took the decision away from the patient and gave it to the state, at the end of the day, and now it is back with the patient.

I want to applaud the inherent compassion I see in this bill. I think it is really important. The deeply held desire of every single patient I knew, regardless of whether they chose to have medical assistance in dying or not, was the ability to die with dignity. The patient's ability to choose where they die is really important. Do they want to die at home in bed? Do they want to die in a palliative care unit, where they have become accustomed to spending their last days? Do they want to die in a hospital? Most patients do not want to die in a hospital. They want to be surrounded by their loved ones.

The government is giving $6 billion to provide home and palliative care resources to the provinces, because it is the responsibility of provinces. They can facilitate this deeply held desire to die with dignity and help patients make this choice at a time when the ability to do so is often impacted by extreme pain and suffering and the extreme mental anguish of knowing they have to leave their loved ones. It simplifies this in a great way, and that is a compassionate thing.

There are some areas that can be improved, and one of them is the singling out of mental illness and disability as a sole diagnosis. I agree with everyone who has spoken in the House today, and with the desire of a lot people, to recognize that mentally ill people should not be put away and should not be allowed to simply decide they want to pass on because the people they live with think they are a burden. It is really important to also look at this from the perspective of the disabled.

I know the minister has taken a lot of time to speak with the disability community and physicians. This government is committed to dealing with mental health and illness. My colleague from the Conservative Party told a very moving story earlier about a particular woman who was contemplating suicide. Giving people options when they are depressed or disabled that let them know there are other options for them, that there is a better life available to them, is inherent to this bill.

The minister is going to look at this aspect and consult broadly with the disability community once again as he is looking at the legislative parts of the bill and the regulations. This is really important. Remember, if we single out mental illness and disability as a sole diagnosis, we may be contravening section 15 of the charter. It assumes that, because someone has a mental illness or is disabled, they do not have the right to make a decision regarding their own life and pain and suffering, whether it be mental or not. The idea that this issue will be addressed in work with the provinces, health care providers and the disability community is really important. The safeguards will be worked out. I will be really clearly involved in making sure they are worked out so they can be put into place to protect mentally ill people and people who are disabled.

I want to quote Justice Baudouin in the Truchon decision: “The vulnerability of a person requesting medical assistance in dying must be assessed exclusively on a case-by-case basis, according to the characteristics of the person and not based on a reference group of so-called ‘vulnerable persons’.” Justice Baudouin also added that the patient’s ability to understand and consent should ultimately be the deciding factor with a physician, along with looking at all of the legal criteria.

Those safeguards must be in place, but we should not assume we can make decisions for people who, because of mental illness and disability, may wish to get medical assistance in dying. Intractable pain and suffering is not merely physical; it can also be mental. With the help of good psychiatrists and good support systems, we will be able to put those safeguards in place.

This bill has come a long way in rectifying many concerns that some medical practitioners have raised. It is important that it respects the right of a medical practitioner or a health care provider to use their own ethics and religion to decide whether they wish to perform medical assistance in dying or not. I am—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Oshawa.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing her experiences. I have a lot of respect for her and her experience as a physician. I have sat at committee with her over the years.

I remember that when we debated the original bill, I talked to a physician in Oshawa. Her name is Dr. Gillian Gilchrist. She is very well-known in the field of palliative care, and she opened the first palliative care clinic in Oshawa, in 1981. Originally, she said that she was very much against this bill because in her experience over the years, she had never had one patient ask her for an assisted death. Not one needed it if they were controlled properly with proper medication and palliative care.

Although we passed a private members' bill from the member for Sarnia—Lambton requesting that the government come up with a national strategy for palliative care, in Canada today, about 70% of people cannot get proper palliative care. I wonder if my colleague supports a more vigorous strategy for Canadians. As 70% of people are not getting proper palliative care, does the lack of care factor into their decision to choose an assisted death? Perhaps they would not choose it if they had proper palliative care.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very thoughtful question. One thing we must understand is that palliative care is for people who are terminally ill and whose death is foreseeable. They know they are going to die from a terminal disease. However, this bill is also about the Carter decision by the Supreme Court. It is for people who are not in danger of dying but who are suffering intractable pain from an incurable disease. Let us not mix up those two things.

For people who are dying and are terminally ill, absolutely palliative care is at the heart of this. People need to know that they do not have to be in absolute pain and suffering and that they can die with dignity. I support palliative care completely and totally, and I think this bill speaks to the idea that people can die in palliative care in their home and in some of those areas—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, my question concerns the second track: people whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. The bill, as it is presented, requires that one of the two medical professionals conducting the assessment have specific expertise in the condition that a person is suffering from. In rural areas, such as the region I represent, there are many rural communities that lack certain medical specialties.

Does the member feel that this particular safeguard creates an inequity between urban and rural parts of the country?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, many medical practitioners are concerned about the inequity of access in rural communities and isolated communities. However, we now have telemedicine and the ability to reach out to get an opinion from a person who has expertise in the condition. That can go on for a period of time so that a patient can have access to the kinds of decisions that can be made with telemedicine. People living in rural areas can have access to tertiary care in big cities, for instance, where they have university hospitals, etc.

I think the bill is saying that we must have that happen and that it can happen. I hope we continue to expand telemedicine and that kind of equitable access for people who live in parts of Canada where they cannot get access as readily as those of us who live in cities.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the expertise that my hon. colleague brings to this issue as a doctor. When my elderly father was facing surgery, we had in place and discussed with a surgeon a do-not-resuscitate order. My father was very angry after the surgery because they resuscitated him, but as the doctor pointed out, he signed an oath and found it very difficult to deal with this issue.

In the member's opinion as a doctor, how are we going to deal with this? By the way, lack of rural broadband is a problem for telehealth.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question. Here is why an advance directive is important. If the father would have had an advance directive written with his physician as a doctor-patient written directive, then no one would be able to overturn it. However, this physician obviously felt he knew better and overruled the patient's desire to die with dignity. He felt he knew better than what the patient wanted. I do not accept that as reasonable at all.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, medical assistance in dying is a sensitive issue that needs to be discussed calmly. It is a difficult subject, let's face it. It is especially difficult because, like all matters dealing with human dignity, any answers we might offer are a reflection of our own values, our beliefs, our way of defining what we see as right and wrong.

That is precisely where the potential pitfalls lie for us parliamentarians as we grapple with moral issues like medical assistance in dying, abortion and same-sex marriage. Relying solely on our own values in the legislative process is tantamount to subjecting the freedom of others to the dictates of our individual consciences. In this case, medical assistance in dying raises the kind of impossible questions that political thought has been considering since the dawn of the modern era. This issue compels us to seek a delicate balance between power, knowledge and freedom.

Everyone knows that, as parliamentarians, we have been given a certain power by our constituents. This legislative power means we have the ability to restrict the rights of our peers through legal prohibitions, directly affecting their freedom. However, it does not necessarily follow that we have all the knowledge to apply that power in a fair manner. To avoid any abuse, we must be humble enough to acknowledge that we are not experts in everything, even though we have to speak to everything.

Max Weber, the father of modern sociology, may provide valuable support to the legislator who is concerned about using their power properly. In his essay “Politics as a Vocation”, Weber says this about the career of politics:

Well, first of all the career of politics grants a feeling of power. The knowledge of influencing men, of participating in power over them, and above all, the feeling of holding in one's hands a nerve fiber of historically important events....

Weber then asks a very perceptive question that applies remarkably well to the debate on medical assistance in dying. He says, “What kind of man must one be if he is to be allowed to put his hand on the wheel of history?” Putting one's hand on the wheel of history evokes the idea that a legislator can change the course of society, as happened with same-sex marriage and abortion.

How does one go about changing the course of society? Weber says that, first, we must determine what qualities a legislator must have to enable them to do justice to the power they exercise and to the responsibility that power imposes upon them. Weber states that there are two pre-eminent qualities for a politician: passion and a feeling of responsibility.

He means passion in the sense of matter-of-factness, of passionate devotion to a cause. For me and my political party, that cause is Quebec's independence. For the Conservatives, who knows. Perhaps it is balancing the budget or some form of social conservativism. For the Liberals, it is multiculturalism and conflicts of interest. Just kidding.

Weber cautions us. “[M]ere passion, however genuinely felt, is not enough...passion as devotion to a 'cause' also makes responsibility to this cause the guiding star of action.” This passion must to some extent be controlled by a form of responsibility.

Weber warns us because he believes that the legislator must be a man of reason. According to Weber, the lack of distance from our passion is one of the deadly sins of legislators. In the context of the bill on medical assistance in dying, this distance means that we cannot let certain interest groups or certain religious groups guide our discussions because we feel that they may withdraw their support for us. In short, Weber tells us that political favouritism disregards distance and this leads us to political incapacity.

Therefore, on the issue of medical assistance in dying, we must adopt this attitude of “distance” in the strongest sense of the word. This distance implies that, on a matter of human dignity, partisan and ideological considerations must take a back seat.

The topic of medical assistance in dying forces us to deal with the complex relationship between ethics and politics. According to Weber, ethics must not be used as justification. He believes that contorting ethics in an attempt to justify one's behaviour is wrong, which brings us to the struggle between two well-known positions: the ethics of responsibility and the ethics of conviction.

The ethics of conviction often manifests in religious beliefs, in being dogmatic about ideologies. This type of ethics is meant to establish a definitive truth that must be protected at all costs in order to achieve one's objective.

Weber said, “If the consequences of an action that flow from pure conviction are evil, then for him the responsibility lies not with the actor but with the world, the stupidity of other people, or the will of God”. He continues, “He who seeks the salvation of the soul, of his own and of others, should not seek it along the avenue of politics”, which seeks to solve quite different tasks.

The ethics of responsibility has us look at the potential consequences of our actions. It forces us to use our legislative power responsibly and to look beyond our allegiances and personal beliefs. We are meant to be conscious of our collective duty and to accept that the greater good comes before personal interests.

I would like to comment briefly on the ethics of responsibility, which is something Quebec is familiar with, from the Select Committee on Dying with Dignity. The members of the commission were mandated by the Quebec National Assembly to hold a rather unique public consultation process, in which the members travelled across Quebec to meet with experts and Quebeckers.

The Parti Québécois's Véronique Hivon took the lead on this file. She handled the process transparently and tackled difficult issues in the realms of medicine, law, philosophy, ethics, sociology and psychology. The committee's work resulted in the passage of the Act Respecting End-of-Life Care, which came into force on December 10, 2015, in Quebec.

I see a striking contrast between Quebec's approach, characterized by the ethics of responsibility, and the federal government's approach. At the time it was passed, the Quebec law went as far as it could without running afoul of the federal legislative framework. Quebec was proactive in engaging in this social debate, whereas the federal government has, so far anyway, simply been reacting to court rulings. This is the old “government of judges”. Governments would rather refer thorny issues to the courts than take a stand. Maybe they are trying to protect their beliefs or avoid offending certain religious groups. Still, parliamentarians have a job to do.

I will now come back to Carter, in which the Supreme Court overturned the Rodriguez decision in order to give greater weight to respect for integrity of the person and the individual's decision-making authority. This opened the door to medical assistance in dying.

Previously, when religious values were more prominent, this situation would have been impossible. In this case, the Supreme Court served as a driver of social progress, but we cannot always turn to the Supreme Court. This raises the following question: Is it normal for elected officials to lag behind on social change and leave it up to the courts to bring legislation in line with the reality of citizens? This is not the first time that members of the House of Commons have turned to the judiciary to avoid making tough decisions so as not to offend anyone. Take, for example, same-sex marriage.

The truth is that these social issues must be discussed in the House with compassion. Bill C-7 responds to a decision of the Quebec Superior Court, which ruled in favour of Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon, both suffering from serious degenerative diseases. They claimed that the reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion was too restrictive in both legislative regimes, the federal and the provincial.

We are all driven by our personal convictions, but our thinking must transcend those beliefs. We have a duty to act with empathy. People suffering from incurable degenerative diseases should not have to go to court to fight the terms and conditions of the administration of medical assistance in dying.

In my view, Bill C-7 will undoubtedly make medical assistance in dying more accessible. We should be relieved that the bill specifically excludes individuals suffering solely from a mental illness from eligibility for medical assistance in dying. I think everyone agrees that this aspect requires further reflection, study and consultation. However, as legislators, we do need to address the issue of advance consent. Many people who reach end of life risk losing their capacity to consent. We therefore need to find a way to respect their choice, too.

At the end of the day, it is fair to say that our reflections on a framework for medical assistance in dying relate to the fundamental freedom of individuals to determine their own condition. Our reflections must be guided by compassion.

I know some people have expressed strong reservations about medical assistance in dying. I can only hope that such personal beliefs will not be imposed on those already suffering.

Lastly, I hope the House will follow Quebec's lead and approach this issue with openness and empathy, rising above partisan lines.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member opposite on his speech and his one-year anniversary as a member of Parliament.

I want to address a point related to a question that the Conservative Party has asked several times. According to the Conservatives, we were negligent for not appealing the Truchon decision by the Superior Court of Quebec and seeking the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada.

My question for the hon. member for Jonquière is the following. When we have a well articulated, well documented, carefully analyzed ruling, is it better to act immediately to protect the vulnerable and their dignity or is it better to carry on by appealing the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court, leaving these people to wait for their rights to be protected?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, it seems to me that appeals brought before the Supreme Court are often used as an excuse to shirk our duty as legislators.

I know that when it comes to issues that touch on individuals' moral values, debate can be a bit trickier, but we must have the courage to take a stand. That is our role as legislators. We cannot just turn to the courts every time the going gets tough. Unfortunately, that often happens. I hope that will not be the case in the debate we are having right now.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused. The member spoke about Weber and being detached. He mentioned not allowing personal beliefs and things such as religion to influence decisions that we make here in this House.

On the one hand, I understand what the member is saying in the sense that we do need to keep the values and opinions of all of our constituents and all Canadians at the forefront. However, at the same time, each of us have our own beliefs and our own opinions.

I have a question for the member. Does he think it is possible that having 338 individuals, all with different beliefs and opinions, coming together to make decisions is a way to actually improve legislation, rather than being more robotic and not allowing personal beliefs into the process?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not think that Max Weber was implying that we are robots and that we must act like robots.

When Weber speaks of distance, he means that I cannot apply my values when dealing with an issue that affects the fundamental rights of others. If I were to do so, I would limit the freedoms of those individuals on the basis of my own values. That is what Weber meant.

In the context of the “dying with dignity” bill, I cannot use my religious beliefs to justify limiting the freedom of individuals who can access medical assistance in dying because they have a deteriorating health condition, because one day they will no longer be capable of giving their consent.

I cannot curtail their freedoms based on my moral principles. I believe that this should guide us in our debate. This does not mean that we leave our values behind, but that certain principles must lead us to greater fairness and greater equality.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely a very important issue for many Canadians.

When the House of Commons debated Bill C-14, I, too, along with my NDP colleagues, voted against that bill because there were many flaws within it. From there, many constituents wrote to me with heartbreaking stories. In fact, one constituent talked about how his mother had to end her life early because she was very worried that if she waited she might lose the faculty to provide informed consent. Those are the kinds of stories that absolutely move us.

To that end, with respect to advance requests as stipulated in the bill before us today, I wonder what the member's thoughts are. Does the member support advance requests?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that advance requests are essential for people with degenerative diseases. We need to balance our personal beliefs with scientific facts. The medical sector is providing guidance.

Numerous reports have been submitted to the Select Committee on Dying with Dignity at the Quebec National Assembly. There is a whole process to manage medical assistance in dying. The decision-making process is very complex, so this is not done in isolation. I think that a person must be able to give consent to an action when they are fully aware. Not allowing this would infringe of some individuals' freedoms.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-7, a very important bill that proposes to amend the Criminal Code provisions on medical assistance in dying, MAID.

It took me a long while to decide that I was going to speak to this bill. In fact, when I first learned that we would be debating this legislation this month, I decided I was not going to speak to it at all because I do not do very well with these topics. I have a very difficult time accepting that life eventually comes to an end, especially the life of those closest to me. In fact, I can come to terms and accept that my own life will end at some point, but I cannot deal with the thought of losing those closest to me.

Some of my colleagues' speeches earlier this week brought me to tears. When someone has strong feelings about a given topic, it generally means that they have something to say about it and that the topic should be discussed.

Canadians must know that, if they are eligible, they have been able to access MAID since June 2016. To be eligible for MAID right now, the person must meet all of the following criteria: They must be at least 18 years of age, be mentally competent, have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, make a voluntary request for medical assistance in dying that is not the result of outside pressure or influence, and give informed consent to receive medical assistance in dying.

Furthermore, in order to be considered as having a grievous and irremediable medical condition, those seeking MAID must meet all of the following criteria: have a serious illness, disease or disability; be in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed; experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from the illness or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that the person considers acceptable; and, lastly, be at a point where natural death has become reasonably foreseeable.

Bill C-7 proposes to repeal the MAID eligibility criteria by modifying the criteria that must be met to be considered to have a grievous and irremediable medical condition so that it includes persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable.

Furthermore, the bill proposes to specify that those whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness are not eligible for MAID.

Last, it proposes to create two sets of safeguards that must be respected before MAID is provided. The first set of safeguards would apply to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and these would be the existing safeguards that have been in effect since 2016. The second set of safeguards would be for persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. These would include existing safeguards as well as additional ones that would apply.

In the interest of time, I will not address all of the safeguards that have been put in place. Rather, I will just focus on those that have been added recently.

A person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable must talk to a doctor about the options available to them to ease their suffering. The two parties must agree that they seriously examined all the possible options, including palliative care and mental health support, before making a decision to apply for medical assistance in dying.

Two independent doctors or nurse practitioners must provide an assessment and confirm that all the eligibility criteria have been met. This eligibility assessment period must take at least 90 days, unless the person is at risk of losing their mental capacity before that time is up. In such cases, the assessment must be a priority and completed before that deadline.

Bill C-7 seeks to respect the personal autonomy and freedom of choice for those seeking access to MAID while, at the same time, protecting vulnerable people and the equality rights of all Canadians. It aims to reduce unnecessary suffering. This issue is a deeply personal one. In fact, we saw from consultations held earlier this year that there was a wide array of opinions and feedback received. Many people were opposed to the idea of MAID altogether, while many others believed the safeguards were too restrictive and made it difficult for some people to receive MAID.

This is a profoundly personal matter for all those involved. I do not think that it is for anyone who has never faced death or end-of-life suffering to judge or determine whether this should be a right and for whom it should be a right. We all have a certain pain threshold, but it is not the same for everyone. We are talking about excruciating physical pain. Who then is in a position to say to what extent such pain can be tolerated?

MAID legislation was passed in 2016 with the intention of ending suffering for those facing death, those who do not have a chance to improve their medical condition. It was passed because the MPs in this chamber thought it would be the right thing to do: to give people the choice to receive MAID if they felt they needed it. Nobody is forced to go down that path, it is a choice, but legislators basically deemed it the right thing to do and the humanitarian thing to do to allow someone in that situation to receive medical assistance in dying.

If this was the humanitarian thing to do for people whose death is reasonably foreseeable, then it only makes sense that those suffering from an illness and experiencing unbearable pain whose death is not reasonably foreseeable and may be five or 10 years away should also be granted those rights. They should also have access to MAID if they have exhausted all other options and have decided with their medical practitioner that this is the way to go.

Again, it is extremely important that we remember this is a choice of the person who is suffering. However, it is also critical to give those in a position to provide medical assistance in dying, such as physicians and nurse practitioners, the choice to refer their patients to someone who is willing to administer MAID if they themselves are not. If administering MAID does not coincide with their values or religious beliefs, it must not be expected of them.

With that being said, it is important for everyone to respect the religious beliefs and values of all Canadians. As such, I completely understand that some may perceive the act of receiving medical assistance in dying as committing a sin. They have the right to die of natural causes if that is their will. In my own religion, this would technically be problematic for me. However, I feel comfortable knowing that if it ever comes to a point where I am in a situation where I am suffering, I have no chance of recovery and I am only going to get worse with time, I will at least have the choice.

One of my colleagues across the aisle in his speech earlier today spoke about an amazing comeback story of someone who was in a terrible situation, but who was on the road to recovery. My colleague was grateful that this person stuck it through and fought to survive. It is important to remember that those who will be eligible to receive MAID will have been assessed by two medical practitioners and both will have determined that the person's medical condition would never improve. If there is a chance for recovery, the person would not be eligible for MAID in the first place.

I understand that not everybody in the House will vote on this bill in the same way and I fully respect everyone's personal choice on this matter, because, once again, it is an extremely personal issue. All members are trying their best to represent their ridings and constituents in the best way they know how. I will be voting in favour of this bill because I do not believe it is my place to get in the way of someone receiving the kind of relief that MAID offers.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this bill goes well beyond the scope of Truchon and in so doing, it removes a number of safeguards, including safeguards in which there was a fair bit of consensus some four years ago. I say that having served as the vice-chair of the Special Committee Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying.

One of those safeguards is the requirement that there be two witnesses. That was not controversial four years ago and yet, in this bill, it is removed. In that regard, it provides a lesser safeguard for medical assistance in dying than validating that of a will, which requires two witnesses. Can my colleague explain the removal of the safeguard?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we saw in a lot of the feedback received during consultations, many people did think that a lot of the safeguards were preventing many people from receiving the right to receive MAID in their final moments or in times when they did not see a recovery and they saw their condition getting worse with time. Not everybody has a family, not everybody has a lot of people in their close circle. Obviously, I believe in protecting Canadians, but at the same time in making sure that everybody has equal access to rights. This obviously gives more accessibility to more people.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-7 sets the assessment period at 90 days for those whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, but are facing intolerable suffering. Does the member agree with the 90-day assessment and does she know how the government came up with the 90-day period?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I personally do not know how that number came up, however, I know that if someone's mental capacity is at the risk of being lost in that 90-day period, it will not take 90 days. However, I would imagine that, for somebody who does have many more years ahead of them and does not have a reasonably foreseeable death, perhaps more reflection needs to be done before actually going through with this kind of thing. I do agree with the 90 days. I think that people need to have enough time to really think about this issue and whether this is the route they want to take and to really consider all other options available before finally going with this one.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the government is talking about things like intolerable pain or unbearable pain, I think we can all agree that for some people it is a very fluid, subjective statement. Therefore, if we are basing it on subjectivity, what can be intolerable pain for one person could be a case of depression for someone else. Is the government not really admitting that it is opening the door in the future for people to get an assisted death for any and every reason because the criteria it is setting are just so subjective for people?