Debates of Nov. 27th, 2020

Criminal Code

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

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

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

Madam Speaker, as a point of clarification, there are four protections for conscience rights in this regime: the preamble, section 9 of the former Bill C-14, section 2 of the Charter and paragraph 132 of the Carter decision.

In terms of persons with disabilities and respecting their autonomy, I refer the member opposite to the comments of Senator Petitclerc, former Conservative minister Steven Fletcher, and many others who have indicated that there is a heterogeneity of views among the disability community.

Last, the question I would put to the member opposite comes from the Truchon decision at paragraph 678. The court addressed the issue of the competence and dignity of persons with disabilities and said:

Where natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, the consent and suffering of the disabled are worthy only of the sympathy of Parliament, which has adopted a protectionist policy towards every such person, regardless of his or her personal situation. As soon as death approaches, however, the state is prepared to recognize the right to autonomy. This is a flagrant contradiction of the fundamental principles concerning respect for the autonomy of competent people, and it is this unequal recognition of the right to autonomy and dignity that is discriminatory in this case.

That is the court in Truchon disavowing the previous regime and requiring this Parliament to extend the regime to ensure the competence, dignity and autonomy of persons with disabilities.

I was wondering if the member opposite would care to comment on that paragraph.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would love to comment on it. That is a Quebec Superior Court decision. It was not appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal. It was not appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is the court we should have listened to on something that so significantly changes a regime in Canada.

We already have MAID. We have accessibility for people who choose it. However, the safeguards are very important. Regardless of what the court may have said, we heard from persons with disabilities at committee who were very clear in their opposition to the changes in this bill, which go far beyond the Truchon decision without a review.

Why did we not do the mandated review? Why has that not happened? Why is the Liberal government choosing to expand into territory that the Truchon decision did not even address?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

An article in yesterday's edition of La Presse stated the following:

The disability inclusion minister says health practitioners should not be allowed to discuss the issue of medical assistance in dying until a patient asks about it, and she is open to amending the law to make that clear.

However, some health care practitioners disagree with her and believe that talking about all options available to patients is part of their duty to ensure informed consent. The Canadian Nurses Association has urged the government to specifically clarify in the law that medical professionals can initiate discussions on medical assistance in dying.

What does the Conservative member think about that?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, there should be an ability for health care professionals to explore all options. However, what we are talking about is who initiates that conversation. It is not a conversation, with respect to this particular regime, that should be forced on a patient, as we heard in testimony from Mr. Foley and another witness: a young woman in a wheelchair who was suffering from pneumonia. She survived, but instead of being immediately provided with the oxygen she needed, she was talked to about MAID.

How does that relate to a diagnosis of pneumonia?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, as we know, one of the challenges created by the current medical assistance in dying legislation is the requirement for final consent at the time the assistance is rendered. This forces those already assessed and approved for medical assistance in dying to make a cruel choice when faced with the possible loss of competence that would make them unable to give consent. They are forced to either go earlier, which a constituent of mine is thinking about, or risk not being able to receive the assistance they need to avoid continuing to live with intolerable suffering.

Audrey Parker campaigned to make Canadians aware of this problem, and Bill C-7 would fix it by creating a waiver of final consent. Do my colleague and the Conservatives support Audrey's amendment to help those facing the end of their lives avoid this cruel choice?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I understand it is a cruel choice and that someone in Audrey's situation wants to be able to make those arrangements. I think they should be able to make those arrangements, but I also think we cannot deny those who are in a position to change their minds the reflection period to do so. It is cruel—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

Before he starts, I would ask him to please use his headset with the proper mike.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not have a headset.

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

I do not think we can proceed with the hon. member's speech because there will not be interpretation.

The hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, what is before us now is perhaps among the greatest human rights abuses in Canadian history, legislating what amounts to a eugenics movement in Canada. That is a quote from Dr. Leonie Herx, a Canadian palliative care physician, and past president of the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians.

As that quote hits members and sinks in, they might imagine the horrors she is speaking about. Is it an effort by the Canadian government to perfect the gene pool? Is it a plan to eliminate those in society deemed burdensome or unwanted? What could the plan possibly be? She is speaking about Bill C-7.

Catherine Frazee, a professor at Ryerson University and disabled persons advocate, who lives with a disability herself, stated that Canada's disability community stands firmly against Bill C-7 because it communicates to us that our lives are not worth living.

Bill C-7, which seeks to remove necessary safeguards to protect the vulnerable from euthanasia, and to expand access to euthanasia for those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable, is dangerous and will lead to countless early and tragic deaths.

Since it was tabled in the previous session, Canada's Conservatives have listened to the pleas of Canada's disability community, who are begging the government to change the bill to protect them from the harm it will cause.

We have listened to people like Roger Foley, who told the justice committee from his hospital bed that he would not survive if this legislation passed, and that the Parliament of Canada would have his blood on its hands.

We listened to Dr. Heidi Janz, who told the committee that the removal of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” as a limiting eligibility criterion for the provision of MAID would result in people with disabilities seeking MAID as an ultimate capitulation to a lifetime of ableist oppression. We listened to countless others from Canada's disability community and indigenous community, whose voices the Liberals decided were not even worth hearing.

Why will the Liberals not listen? Why are they in such a rush to pass some of the most complicated legislation to ever come before Parliament? Why did they vote down all our amendments, which Canada's disability community had a hand in drafting?

To Canada's disability community, their doctors and their advocates, I say this. I am listening. We are listening, and we will not stop until their voices are heard.

I would like to speak now about Dr. Ramona Coelho, a doctor practising in London, Ontario, whose current practice is largely composed of people living with disabilities, as well as refugees, men out of prison or on bail, and other marginalized persons.

She made it clear to the committee that if this bill passes, she may be forced to leave the medical profession. She stated, “I find it appalling that there is a suicide completion track just for my type of patients. Everyone else's suicidal thoughts are irrational and those people deserve saving, but in this bill, my patients do not. If a young man tried to shoot himself, we would hide his guns and offer him suicide prevention. What is it about persons who are disabled and sick that makes it okay to do otherwise? There is no medical evidence that their suicidality is different from that of able-bodied persons.”

This is the ultimate form of ableism with stakes as high as life and death. We offer suicide prevention to able-bodied people who experience suicidal ideation, but if someone is disabled, their life has no value and is not worth living. Their suffering and the burden they place on the health care system qualifies someone for suicide assistance, not suicide prevention.

If Bill C-7 passes unamended, presenting MAID to patients who live with disabilities will become a standard of care. Doctors will be forced to offer the termination of a patient's life, which could be long ahead of them, as a standard of care. Imagine the weight placed on that doctor's conscience. Doctors work with patients to help them find value, joy and hope for a future in their lives. When death is not reasonably foreseeable we are no longer dealing with medical assistance in dying, but medically administered death. We have gone from MAID to mad.

A letter penned by physicians, together with vulnerable Canadians, explained the challenges medically administered death as a standard of care would pose to their ability to do their jobs. This petition received a thousand signatures from physicians across the country. Normally to table a petition in the House, it only takes 25 names. Therefore, when a thousand experts in a field vehemently oppose what the government is doing to their work and to their patients, the government needs to listen to what they are saying.

The bill would allow a person who has just suffered a life-changing spinal cord injury to end his or her life just 90 days after the catastrophic event that caused the injury. When people are most vulnerable, experiencing unimaginable stress about their new reality, a doctor would be forced to suggest ending their lives as an option.

From my conversations with doctors and some testimony on the record at justice committee, suicidal ideation after a catastrophic injury is very common but almost always goes away with good care and when a patient eventually finds a way to cope with what he or she is dealing with. By offering death when people are most vulnerable, we are robbing them of their futures.

It takes much longer than 90 days for suicidal ideations to go away, but they do and people find joy, support and a life that is absolutely worth living. In fact, because of chronic underfunding of our health care system in Canada, it usually takes more than 90 days for a patient to even see a specialist. Do we really want to offer death before we offer care? Is that what we want our legacy as members of this Parliament to be?

The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion told the justice committee that it was easier to receive MAID than it was to get a wheelchair. It is far easier to receive MAID than it is to receive quality specialized care. A request for MAID cannot be truly voluntary, free from coercion, without first access to quality care that meets the needs of a patient.

The opposition put forward an amendment to require patients be offered meaningful access to care before MAID could be carried out, and Liberal members voted it down. This is what systemic discrimination looks like. On the street, people look away from persons with disabilities and many Canadians think they would rather be dead than left disabled. This type of discrimination is 100% unacceptable in 2020.

Let me share the story of Spring Hawes, a lady who has lived with a spinal cord injury for 15 years now. She said, “As disabled people, we are conditioned to view ourselves as burdensome. We're taught to apologize for our existence and to be grateful for the tolerance of those around us. We're often shown that our lives are worth less than non-disabled lives. Our lives and our survival depends on our agreeableness.”

Let us face it. A choice to die is not a free choice when their lives depend on their compliance. What does it tell disabled Canadians when we are willing to offer them death before we are willing to offer them care?

Kristine Crowley, a person who had a spinal cord injury 33 years ago, now has a doctorate and is a professor at a university. She was a wheelchair track Paralympian. She is married, has three children and has travelled extensively, all done after her accident.

Kris shared that it took her five years after her spinal cord injury to feel great again. She said, “To all outward appearances, I'm a successful person living and contributing to our community, but I'd be lying if I told you that I was good to go within three months of my injury when I was discharged from hospital. In fact, it was a few years before I was able to open my eyes in the morning and feel good.”

How many stories like Kristine's will never be told if Bill C-7 passes? That is what we need to ask ourselves.

My colleagues and the disability community are begging the government to stop this mad train. We do not want to be responsible for one of the greatest human rights abuses in Canadian history.

I am here on behalf of disabled Canadians, their doctors and their advocates. The government did not listen to them, but it has to listen to me: Stop the ableism, stop treating them like their lives are not worth living.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is unfortunate and inaccurate to conflate the idea of discrimination in this context.

First, the charter of rights requires that persons with disabilities be able to make the exact same decisions about their body and their passing as persons with ability, which is what the Truchon decision references.

Second, there is reference to conscience protection rights in the Carter decision, and I have already referenced that. Also, there is a reference to it in the preamble of the previous bill, Bill C-14, and I referenced that. Out of an abundance of caution after amendments that, I believe, were moved by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton in the last Parliament for further clarity, a further amendment was made with respect to conscience rights in Bill C-14. To purport that conscience rights are not protected in this legislative scheme is categorically false.

There have been assertions of a culture of coercion or encouragement towards accessing MAID on the part of practitioners. Is the member aware of any instances, not just in her province but anywhere in this country, where such instances of coercive behaviour of medical practitioners has resulted in a prosecution under the Criminal Code?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would really like to assure the hon. member that the words about discrimination are not my words. Those are words from the disabled community. It is very important that he also listen to the disabled community. They are not able to be here today, because they are not elite politicians. I am here, and I am telling the member that they call what the government is doing in the bill discrimination.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. Once again, this is a very emotional debate.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the fact that many people believe it is important that services for people with disabilities be improved so that these individuals are not choosing to access medical assistance in dying because of the poor quality of care available to them.

I have spoken with many organizations that help people with disabilities, and there might be a deeper problem here. Some requests for medical assistance in dying may be attributable to the poor quality of care that is sometimes given to people with disabilities.

Perhaps that is because, in recent years, the federal government has not transferred enough money to Quebec and the provinces for health care. Increased health transfers could help people with disabilities and give those who want to live the option of receiving proper palliative care. In short, it would give them options.

What does my colleague think about the importance of reinvesting in health care?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, our health care system has been chronically underfunded, especially in regards to palliative care. We are also noticing that our older community is aging, and we do not have quality palliative care in place.

I absolutely agree. We need to start acting now before it is too late.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, Audrey Parker campaigned to make Canadians aware of the challenges created by the current medical assistance in dying legislation and the requirement for final consent at the time that the assistance is rendered. It forces those already assessed and approved for medical assistance in dying to make that cruel choice when they are faced with the possible loss of competence that would make them then unable to give consent. They are then forced to either go earlier or risk not being able to receive the assistance they need to avoid continuing to live with intolerable suffering.

I asked this question earlier, and I appreciate my colleague's passion on this. Do she and the Conservative Party support Audrey's amendment in helping those facing end of life avoid this cruel choice?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am here today talking on behalf of the disability community, which has called this its “worst nightmare”. We need to keep that in mind, so let us make amendments that will protect the vulnerable among us, because that is our job here in the House.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, we debated this process of medical assistance in dying in previous Parliaments. I think one of the things that really was notable about those debates was a lack of rancour and a deep willingness to respect each other and to understand that the best motives of all parliamentarians can be seen in moments like this, when we are dealing with issues that are complex and morally difficult, but where ultimately we have a responsibility to ensure that the words of the courts are observed and that we do the best for Canadians.

I would urge the hon. member to perhaps show respect to every member of this House.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take my last 10 seconds to speak on behalf of the indigenous community, which is a very spiritual community that wants nothing to do with this.

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

Madam Speaker, we are here today debating specific amendments that have been proposed to Bill C-7. I would encourage all members, whatever their first instincts are on the broader philosophical question of euthanasia or medical assistance in dying, to put those aside and look at the particular amendments that are in front of us. These are amendments that have been put forward by my colleague, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, who I know has worked very hard on this issue ever since it first came to Parliament and he first came to Parliament in 2015.

These amendments are reasonable amendments that all members, regardless of party and regardless of underlying philosophy, should be able to support on their merits because they preserve the principle of autonomy as well as preserving protection of the vulnerable.

The first amendment seeks to preserve a 10-day reflection period. Right now, a person who has gone through the assessment process and been approved for euthanasia or medical assistance in dying has a 10-day reflection period before this is actually carried out.

This reflection period is important because we know that people may have varying experiences of pain and a varying response to their circumstances over time. It is consistent with the principle of autonomy to want to ensure that, when people are making decisions about life and death, they are doing so not in the situation where they are rushed, pushed or feel like they need to make a snap judgment, but rather they are doing it in a way that involves some period of reflection and consultation and that they are not just responding to very immediate but transient circumstances. That is why Parliament, in its wisdom a mere four years ago, thought that this reflection period was important. Also, there was some recognition that there may be some cases where that reflection period is not appropriate. That is why, right in the existing legislation, there is a mechanism by which the 10-day reflection period can be waived. The process for waiving that reflection period is not onerous. It is not required that a person make an appeal to the courts, in order to get that reflection period waived.

The requirement for the waiving of the reflection period is merely that the physicians who sign off on the request also sign off on the waiving of the reflection period. It sets in place a default. It puts in place the concept that generally speaking, in the majority of cases, there should be a reflection period. There should be a mechanism to ensure that we do not have somebody requesting, having an assessment and receiving this thing on the same day.

We have pointed out that the government's proposal now in Bill C-7 to remove the 10-day reflection period could bring in a situation of same-day death, of somebody requesting this, going through the assessment and receiving this all on the same day. I do not think it is reasonable that a person's very worst day should be their last day, that a person could visit their mother or father on Wednesday and everything seems fine, and then go in on Friday to find that they went through the process on Thursday because that is what they wanted that day.

Members have said this would not happen in practice as physicians are reasonable, health care systems are reasonable, and that it is very unlikely that this would all go through in one day. Nonetheless, we heard repeatedly, at committee, testimony from people who did feel that they were being pressured. The parliamentary secretary asked if there are any examples of this happening. If someone reads the committee evidence they will see that testimony and hear the gut-wrenching stories of a mother whose daughter was told that she should go for medical assistance in dying. The daughter said she did not want it. Then the family was told that they were being selfish, so that family left that hospital because they did not feel safe in that environment. They were having medical assistance in dying pushed on them to such an extent that they did not feel safe.

Do I think that most doctors or most health care practitioners behave that way? Of course not, but that is why it is called a safeguard. A safeguard because most people using common sense, acting in a responsible way, would not need that safeguard in place. The safeguard exists to protect people in cases where that good judgment that we want to see in action does not take place. The principle of safeguards is not that most people might act in an abusive way, but it is the fact that some minority may act in a way that is not appropriate. That is why we have rules in place in the legislation to protect people. The safeguards are worth it because we are talking about life and death.

I encourage members, however they feel on the issue more broadly, to recognize the inherent reasonableness of a 10-day reflection period, which can already be waived in certain situations.

Most of these votes will take place on a partisan basis, but I say to every member, Liberal, New Democrat or Bloc Québécois, it is their conscience on the line and this is a matter of life and death. Every one of us, regardless of party, have a vote in this place that we have a right to exercise.

If members think that a 10-day reflection period, and most of the time it could still be waived in certain circumstances, is reasonable to ensure that vulnerable people are not pressured, then vote in favour of these amendments. Vote in favour of these amendments, first for a 10-day reflection period and second to clarify an assessment period in the case where death is not reasonably foreseeable, a 120-day assessment period, to ensure that people who have a disability, who experience a new kind of challenge, will actually go through a process of receiving treatment or at least be more likely to receive treatment before they complete the waiting period that has been put in place.

Would we not all agree that it would be a problem if someone could get medical assistance in dying faster than they could get actual care and management of their situation, if it is easier to access death than to access the basic implements that would allow a person with a disability to adapt to their new circumstances?

I would suggest that it is eminently reasonable that people be offered and receive treatment and support for adaptation to their circumstances before they receive death. Instead of just being abstractly—

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

I must interrupt the member, because it is 1:30 p.m. The hon. member will have three minutes to finish his remarks once we return to the study of the bill.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

National Framework for Diabetes Act

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

moved that Bill C-237, An Act to establish a national framework for diabetes, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-237, an act to establish a national framework for diabetes in Canada. I would also like to thank the member for Winnipeg North for seconding the motion to introduce my bill.

I could not be happier to be debating my bill during November, which, as many may know, is Diabetes Awareness Month.

Over 11 million Canadians live with diabetes or prediabetes. A new case is diagnosed every three minutes and 90% of these cases are type 2, which means they can be prevented through better awareness, education and lifestyle changes. This disease is the cause of 30% of strokes, 40% of heart attacks, 50% of kidney failure requiring dialysis and 70% of non-traumatic low-limb amputations. This is the harsh reality. In the Peel Region alone, which I am proud to call home, the rate of diabetes more than doubled between 1996 and 2015.

Some Canadians are at increased risk of diabetes, including South Asians, the indigenous population and Métis people. We also know that diabetes disproportionately affects Canadians with low incomes and education.

Complex public health challenges, such as chronic diseases like diabetes, cannot be addressed with a single-solution approach. No organization, institution or sector of society acting alone can solve this challenge. All segments of society, including communities, academia, government, the charitable and not-for-profit sectors, and the private sector must work together if we are to be successful. That is why the bill mandates that the Minister of Health work in collaboration with provincial health leaders, indigenous communities and other stakeholders to develop a national framework designed to support improved access to diabetes prevention and treatment to ensure better health outcomes for Canadians.

In many cases, diabetes is preventable. We know that individuals who have a moderate to high level of physical activity, who eat a healthy diet and who do not smoke are 82% less likely to be diagnosed with diabetes. Having been a health care professional for over 18 years, I have seen first-hand how a healthy diet, staying active and exercising can all contribute to the prevention of this disease. Let us combat diabetes and its life-threatening complications by making Canadians familiar with diabetes warning signs, encouraging healthy lifestyle choices and making it possible to access the best possible care.

It is estimated that this year the cost of hospital care and drugs for diabetes will amount to approximately $30 billion. This is a massive burden on our public health care system, but the costs do not end there. Whenever a Canadian suffers a stroke or a heart attack, that is an additional cost to our health system that may result in long-term costs. When a Canadian experiences kidney failure that requires dialysis, there is a cost. When a Canadian tragically has to undergo amputation, there is a cost. The secondary costs that diabetes has on our public budget cannot be calculated, but every dollar spent preventing it means greater savings down the line. So many of these complications are preventable with the proper care.

When I was first elected in 2015, it was a goal of mine to bring the issues of Canadians living with diabetes to Ottawa and to elevate the issue of diabetes as a whole. I have been honoured to serve as the chair of the all-party diabetes caucus, where we have heard from diabetes advocates, stakeholders and organizations to gain a better understanding of how the federal government can support Canadians living with diabetes.

In 2017, I travelled extensively to consult with medical professionals and stakeholders about how best to meet the needs of those suffering from diabetes. This gave me even greater insight into how diabetes impacted communities in different regions of Canada. The result of this was the publication of the report, “Defeating Diabetes”, which promotes healthy eating as a prevention method.

That same year, I represented Canada at the Global Diabetes Policy Summit in Rome, Italy, where 38 countries were represented. We spoke about the best way to tackle this growing issue. I also attended the World Congress of Diabetes in Calcutta, where, through engagement with international leaders, we were able to compare research and assess our commitment to the fight against diabetes.

One other important aspect of diabetes I learned on these international travels was how well-respected Canada is on the world stage when it comes to diabetes, especially on the insulin invention. I hope that Canada will continue to be a global leader in the fight to defeat diabetes for years to come.

Locally, I successfully advocated for the City of Brampton to proclaim November as Diabetes Awareness Month and the 14th as Diabetes Day. In 2018, the all-party diabetes caucus engaged fellow parliamentarians to participate in Diabetes Day on the Hill to raise awareness of diabetic risks to Canadians and to build support for an updated comprehensive national diabetes strategy. Our diabetes mobile screening unit was brought in to emphasize prevention and encourage testing. This was an opportunity for all members of Parliament to get first-hand experience in understanding the aspects of diabetes. Nearly a hundred of us accepted the challenge to wear a step counter and log our efforts for 10 days to raise awareness around our health.

This spring, I was able to virtually participate in several meetings and town halls with Diabetes Canada about how Canadians living with diabetes have been affected by COVID-19. While people with diabetes are not more likely to catch COVID-19, if they do get it, adults living with diabetes are at greater risk of developing serious symptoms and complications. More recent data from Alberta shows that 42% of Albertans who have died of COVID-19 also had diabetes. Those who are infected with the virus are more likely to suffer serious cardiac and respiratory complications. They face mortality four times that of those without diabetes.

As many members of the House know, back in the spring of 2019 I was proud to bring forward the unanimously supported motion to declare November as Diabetes Awareness Month in Canada, but there is so much more to do than raise awareness. The World Health Organization recommends that every country implement a national framework for diabetes. Last April, the Standing Committee on Health tabled a report that gave multiple recommendations. Among them the committee asked that the government consider a framework for a diabetes strategy for Canada. This comprehensive report already outlined the steps that the government should take in the fight against diabetes.

When we were undergoing this study, we heard a great deal about the mental health issues that are common among people living with diabetes. Those living with type 2 diabetes are more at risk of depression. We have heard examples of their being stigmatized and bullied. There are overall signs of greater risk of mental health issues, including anxiety and depression. At the health committee, we heard from one individual living with diabetes who spoke openly about the anxiety and the stigma she felt around the disease in her family. She said:

In my family, there are 35 diabetics and we don't talk about it. I have to do my blood sugar under the table when I visit my mother. We don't discuss it, and they don't treat.

Last year, I lost my uncle to it because they just won't treat. They won't admit to it. They don't want to deal with it because the stigma is so bad.

There is a strong need to reduce the stigma associated with diabetes. Reducing messaging that blames patients for their diabetes is an important first step to take. Early detection of diabetes can prevent complications and reduce the strain on the health care system.

The health committee also heard some shocking stats about diabetes and indigenous communities. Diabetes rates are three to four times higher among first nations than among the general Canadian population, and many indigenous people are at increased risk of developing diabetes. Furthermore, indigenous individuals are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at a younger age than other individuals. Those living in a first nation community who are in their twenties have an 80% chance of developing the disease during their lifetimes, compared with 50% among the rest of the population of the same age.

The Canadian Indigenous Nurses Association identified several factors as to why this is the case. Geographical isolation, lack of health care services, poor Internet connectivity to facilitate distance care, and reduced access to nutritious food all contribute to the prevalence of diabetes in indigenous communities.

The health committee also recommended the federal government hold discussions with the provinces to explore possible approaches to providing uniform coverage of diabetes-related medications, supplies and equipment, such as lancets, across Canada. As it stands now, each province provides different coverage for different aspects of diabetes treatment, meaning those living with diabetes receive uneven support depending on where they live. All levels of government must work together to find a solution to improve access to a family physician and other health services for people living with diabetes in rural, remote and northern communities.

As I mentioned previously, my community in Brampton and the Peel Region faces a high rate of diabetes compared with the rest of the country. However, locally, we have some true diabetes champions working to reverse this course. I appreciate all of the private sector stakeholders based in Brampton that do phenomenal work helping those with diabetes, such as Medtronic and Dynacare, which provide testing services and advice to help people manage their illness.

The #Dynacare4Diabetes wellness campaign just launched in our city. The goal of this campaign is to encourage Bramptonians to assess their risk and get tested to see if they are at risk of diabetes by providing the A1 test free of charge.

Medtronic is doing commendable work in providing compassionate care for our residents living with diabetes.

I would like to thank Laura Syron, the president of Diabetes Canada, and its federal affairs director, Kimberley Hanson. I have been proud to work alongside them to raise awareness, including helping them with multilingual communications materials for multicultural communities.

I would also like to thank JDRF, Canada's leading type 1 diabetes advocacy organization, for all the support and advice it has provided over the years. It also endorsed my bill.

I am so proud to have support on this bill from organizations and individuals such as the CNIB Foundation, Peel's medical officer of health, Dr. Lawrence Loh, Dr. Naveed Mohammad of William Osler Health System and many more.

I thank the Brampton City Council, which has officially endorsed this bill.

Canada has repeatedly been the home of some of the biggest breakthroughs in diabetes care and research. Twenty years ago, Dr. Shapiro at the University of Alberta was on the team of researchers that developed the Edmonton protocol and islet transplant procedure, which temporarily reversed diabetes and allowed patients to be insulin independent. Just last week, it was reported that his team may be on its way to finding an actual cure for diabetes. This work is in its early stages.

In 1961, Canadian scientists discovered stem cells, and of course next year will mark the 100th anniversary of Sir Frederick Banting's historic discovery of insulin right here in Canada. Two weeks ago, on World Diabetes Day, I was in London, Ontario to participate in the ceremony to rekindle the Flame of Hope. This flame has been burning brightly and will continue to do so until we find a cure for diabetes. It stands as a symbol of Canadian innovation. I hope it will be a Canadian team of researchers that will one day be able to extinguish this flame.

Bill C-237 would change the lives of the 11 million Canadians living with diabetes from coast to coast to coast. By working together, I am confident that one day we will extinguish the torch at Banting House. Together, I know we will find a way to defeat diabetes.

I encourage all members in the House to join me in supporting the improvement of the lives of millions of Canadians across our country.

Canada gave insulin to the world. There is no reason why we cannot lead the way to defeat diabetes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to express my appreciation to the mover of the bill. She has been an incredible advocate on the diabetes file. Over the years, I have seen her advocate very passionately here in the House, as well as in caucus and on the side with many people.

Obviously, she is very passionate about the issue. I wanted to give her my personal thanks for being such a strong advocate on such an important health issue that all Canadians need to have a better understanding of.

I wanted to make that comment and compliment my colleague.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his great passion for diabetes. We need diabetes advocates on all sides of the House.

The member is right that the bill is rooted in the community I represent in the Peel region. I am passionate because I know that diabetes is a big burden on the health care system. I have heard from so many constituents who have diabetes or whose family members do, and they need more support. One in six people in Peel is affected by diabetes. This is so—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Shefford.