[Technical difficulty—Editor]
House of Commons Hansard #41 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was medical.
House of Commons Hansard #41 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was medical.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
I am going to repeat that again, because I am not sure how much was registered by the hon. member who is currently online and who has the floor.
To the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, while I was standing, and as I mentioned, there was some disorder in the House. I was interrupting for that reason. His last sentence or two was probably not registered in debate. I am going to go back to him and let him finish up his final thought on that, and then we will carry on with debate.
The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Mr. Speaker, not knowing exactly what [Technical difficulty—Editor]
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
Let us try that. We are working in manual mode here right now. I think we are encountering some problems with the console. We will try to work in that manner.
I just want to thank the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove for raising that point as well and helping me to recognize that we were not getting audio even from the Speaker's chair. I thank him for that.
We are now going to go to resuming debate, the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.
Suspension of SittingCriminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
We are going to have to interrupt the hon. member. It would appear that we are not registering audio on those who are participating online, on the Zoom platform, as well.
We are going to have to momentarily suspend the proceedings, just to see if we can get that corrected. I will ask the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove to stand by. We will suspend momentarily until we are ready to go again. As soon as that happens, we will let the members who are online, and also those here in the House, know that we are ready to go again.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 9:26 p.m.)
(The House resumed at 9:37 p.m.)
Sitting ResumedCriminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
We are going to try this again. We think we have a fix in place to at least get us through the evening until we can get something else sorted out. There is some kind of technical issue, but I think we are at a point where we can continue and get back under way.
We are going to go back to the start of the 10 minutes that we began for the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove, so he will have his full 10 minutes, and we will restart that right at that location.
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on a point of order.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if he is still on, but I believe the final response from the member hon. for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River was also missed. I was told the sound problem was also occurring at that point, just so you are aware. I do not know if we want to go back to him or not, but that is just for information.
Sitting ResumedCriminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
I thank the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for thinking of that. He is probably right, although we will have to check on that with debates to see if that did, in fact, get picked up.
The hon. member is no longer online. I do not like to point out the absence or presence of hon. members, but nonetheless it appears that we are not able to go back to him in this case, so we will go back then. I thank the hon. member.
We will go to resuming debate with the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Mr. Speaker, the government's proposed legislation to expand the availability of MAID to people whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable is, in my opinion, deeply flawed and the term MAID, in those circumstances, is a misnomer. If Bill C-7 passes, we are no longer talking about doctors and nurses helping those who are dying and alleviating suffering, but helping people to die who are not even near death.
The reasonable foreseeability of natural death standard, which was so central to the Carter decision, makes sense from a medical perspective, as doctors might be willing to expedite the natural dying process given their traditional roles of assisting medically to relieve suffering. It is quite another question whether medical ethics contemplate doctors now bringing death into the equation, where natural death is not even reasonably foreseeable. It is no longer medical assistance in dying, but medical aid to end a difficult life. This is a big shift for Canadians, but the average Canadian was not even consulted on this big shift.
After the Truchon decision of the Quebec Superior Court, the Attorney General and the Liberal government are treating as settled constitutional doctrine this very key question, whether those who are not dying but suffering grievously and irremediably must be given the right to choose MAID. The government side of the House, throughout the debate on this topic, has stated that it has consulted widely with Canadians, but the extent of the consultations was an online survey that was open for a couple of weeks, containing confusing and ambiguous questions with multiple choice answers that left some respondents, people I have spoken to, having to choose the least of a selection of evils. The public was never asked whether the reasonable foreseeability of natural death standard should be dropped. A judge in one province thought so, but what do Canadians think? We will never know, because the question was not asked. A so-called public consultation that fails to ask the key question is not a real consultation. It is a pretext for the government to advance an ideological agenda.
Truchon was poorly reasoned and unbalanced. It has been left unappealed. By failing to appeal this decision, the Attorney General and the government have conceded that one judge in one province can curtail Parliament's power to promote broader societal interests in protecting people who are elderly, ill, disabled or vulnerable. One judge in a lower court was allowed to overturn Parliament's well-reasoned response to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, and Parliament's well-considered opinion expressed in Bill C-14, four years ago. In my opinion, the Attorney General failed to do his job.
What happens if nothing happens? What if this bill does not pass, either in the House or in the Senate, before the Quebec Superior Court's now-extended deadline of December 18? It will become law in Quebec, which means that provision in our Criminal Code will restrict MAID to only those whose death is reasonably foreseeable in Quebec. That is, out of circumstance, better than the new regime introduced by this flawed Bill C-7, so let it fall. Let the deadline come and go. There will be more protection for vulnerable people if nothing happens than if Bill C-7 becomes law.
If all Bill C-7 did was reflect the Truchon requirement, then this bill would be more acceptable. Rather, the government has taken this opportunity to go much farther than was required by the Truchon decision.
Bill C-7 includes some additions that were not required by Truchon, including advance directives and dropping the requirement for contemporary consent. It also drops the reflection period for those whose death is reasonably foreseeable and, for no apparent good reason, it drops the requirement for two witnesses.
Should we leave the safeguards in place? It has been argued by the government side of House that safeguards are just barriers to implementing the decisions that people have already made. However, that is exactly what safeguards are for. They are intended to be barriers to protect the vulnerable. That is the objective, not to create inconvenience, although safeguards may be inconvenient in some cases.
Now I want to talk about advance directives. We have heard arguments in favour of them, and some have cited the Audrey Parker case. Ms. Parker chose to end her life earlier than she had planned because she feared losing cognitive ability to make the decision later on, when she would have really preferred to make her final decision to die. The best argument, in my opinion, against the Audrey principle is that some people have indeed changed their mind when the time came for the lethal injection.
The first annual report on MAID in Canada, published in July 2020, stated that 3.6% of patients who had made a written request for MAID later changed their mind and withdrew their request. While 3.6% seems like a low number, it was based on 7,300 MAID deaths. That means 263 people changed their minds.
I want to go back to the consultation of 300,000 Canadians. If the government had asked as a question about whether Canadians were accepting of a safeguard that would be designed such that only 263 people would have died, with their lives terminated against their wishes, I think the answer would have been quite different. That is the thing about consultations and surveys: They depend very much on the way questions are written. I do not think Canadians were properly consulted.
The same argument can apply to the 10-day reflection period. The whole idea is to let people reflect on the gravity of the document they have just signed and have the opportunity to change their minds. Last year, 263 people did indeed change their minds. We need to protect people like them.
I now want to talk about seniors care. According to that same report, 771 MAID recipients gave isolation and unbearable loneliness as a reason for requesting death. Easier access to MAID is not the right solution to loneliness and isolation. It is palliative care.
I want to briefly give an example in my family. My father-in-law just recently passed away. He had excellent palliative care at Langley Memorial Hospital, and I want to thank the caregivers there. If every Canadian had palliative care like he had, this would not be the debate that it is. This is what we should be talking about. We should be talking about expanding palliative care, rather than expanding MAID to people whose death is not even reasonably foreseeable.
Chris Bittle LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I am enjoying this debate. It is interesting to find there is a new-found love of the Supreme Court in the Conservative Party. There was nothing in existence before, as the former Conservative government did nothing after the Carter decision. However, there is a new-found love, and these unconstitutional requirements need to wait years longer. This is from a party that did not support the previous legislation.
Why is the hon. member suggesting that individuals cannot change their minds? That is a dangerous thing to say. It is not that this legislation requires a person to make up their mind and they cannot possibly change it. Why does he and the Conservative Party mislead and suggest that people cannot change their minds, that people will be forced to die against their will? Is their argument so thin that they have to resort to those kinds of arguments?
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Mr. Speaker, first I will talk about the Supreme Court of Canada. As a lawyer practising law for many years, I have the deepest respect for the Supreme Court of Canada. Very many well-written decisions come out of there, which are shaping Canadian society. I have the deepest respect for them. If the Truchon decision had been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, we would have had a different outcome. We certainly would have had good constitutional considerations put into the decision.
As for people changing their mind, I recognize that Bill C-7 would allow people to change their mind if they have cognitive ability, but that is the whole point. Advance requests do not protect people who have cognitive disability at the time that the lethal injection is going to be applied. This also puts the doctor in a very difficult position of having to make that final decision to apply the lethal injection. I do not think that we are any further ahead.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about this issue of people changing their mind. I would refer him and members of the House to the powerful testimony, before the committee, of Dr. Ramona Coelho. She is a physician who has, within her practice, a very large number of vulnerable people. She is practising in Ontario.
She expressed concern with the way this legislation is set up, removing safeguards and dramatically shortening timelines, in one case completely eliminating the timeline so they could have same-day death. She made the point that there is a real risk that people who are experiencing temporary suicidal ideation will not receive the care and treatment that they need that allows them to move in a different direction, and that the result will be people being pushed into choosing this option without seeing the alternatives and without seeing what may very well be the light at the end of the tunnel.
We know that the data suggest that when people have the onset of a disability in their life, that can be a very difficult adaptation period, that people can certainly experience genuine angst and suicidal ideation, but temporary suicidal ideation. That speaks to the importance of an appropriate time frame, at least a 10-day reflection period, and for at least the opportunity, in the case of a disability, to get information and to receive treatment first. That is the testimony we heard at the justice committee. I would appreciate the member's feedback.
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point of a 10-day reflection period or any reflection period. It is for the person who just signed the document to give deep reflection to the document that he or she has just signed as to whether this is the right thing. It might have been the right thing at the time. It could very well be that within the reflection period they could change their mind. It was a good safeguard that was put in place in Bill C-14, a well-considered opinion of this Parliament, and it should be maintained. There is absolutely no reason to eliminate it, if the purpose is to comply with the Truchon decision.
Derek Sloan Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue and I am pleased and honoured to speak to it tonight. I would like to share, from the perspective of at least certain communities in Canada, some of the issues that certainly many members in our caucus and others have with the bill.
Many people feel that the government has essentially ignored the concerns of Canada's disabled community, their doctors and their advocates who have made it clear that the bill would cause harm to their community. They have also ignored indigenous communities in their misgivings about the bill. Personally, I have been reached out to by physicians, representatives from advocacy groups for people with disabilities, physicians who serve the disabled, palliative care physicians and, most powerfully, disabled Canadians who depend on caregivers to live their lives.
I can assure the House that Canada's disability community is firmly against Bill C-7 and I think that is clear in the testimony we have seen. They are afraid of the message it sends that the lives of disabled Canadians are not worth living. Physicians have expressed serious concerns with euthanasia becoming a standard of care as the bill would mandate. They are clear in expressing that a 90-day waiting period is not nearly enough. It is very common for patients who experience a catastrophic medical episode like a stroke or who receive a diagnosis of a debilitating disease to express death wishes. Part of a doctor's job is to remind their patients that their life has value and to encourage them to persevere. It is also very common for initial suicidal ideations to go away in a matter of months after a patient becomes more used to their situation.
A 90-day reflection period is simply not enough time. It makes me tremble when I think of how many lives will be needlessly cut short if the bill passes. The government should have appealed the Truchon decision to defend its own law in the Supreme Court and is, in my view recklessly, rushing to pass this new law before the initial review of the MAID legislation has taken place. It is important to recognize the fact that the mandated five-year review of the initial MAID legislation has not taken place yet. The government is jumping the gun here in proposing the bill, which loosens the necessary safeguards in place to ensure euthanasia is safe, rare, never coerced and never rushed.
The Quebec Superior Court's Truchon decision declared that euthanasia ought to be made available to those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable. The government has decided that the law needs to be changed to align with the decision of a provincial court, ignoring calls from this side of the House to appeal the decision and defend its own law. As a brief caveat on that point, I feel it pertinent to mention that when the first iteration of this law came, the one that was struck down by the Truchon court, some of the arguments that were made on this side of the House dealt with the slippery slope argument and that was often stated to be an incorrect argument. It was stated that no, the bill is legal, rare and safe. Yet not even reaching the review process that was in place in that law, we are seeing more expansion.
Whenever we think of this law, I would like us to think about potential expansion that may happen in the future, that of children, that of mental illness that we see elsewhere. Bill C-7 does not simply expand access to euthanasia to those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable. It goes beyond Truchon in loosening the safeguards that were already in place, safeguards that frankly have not been strictly adhered to.
Tabling this legislation before the scheduled review of the euthanasia regime in Canada and without appealing the Truchon decision is irresponsible. The government is ignoring the experts. A recent statement was penned and signed by over 1,000 physicians in Canada in response to Bill C-7. That is a lot of physicians. When we are presented with a document with 1,000 signatures from experts in a relevant field, the House should pay close attention to what that document says. Let me read a few important quotes from the statement:
The reckless removal of safeguards previously deemed essential will place desperately vulnerable patients directly in harm's way and may cost them their very lives....This is not the medicine that we have devoted our lives to practicing. Our intent is to heal and to alleviate suffering, not to deliberately end life. We advocate for the lives of our patients, not their deaths....Unfortunately, our patients are the ones who suffer the most from the consequences of this ill-devised scheme. The shock of a sudden illness, or an accident resulting in disability, can lead patients into feelings of anger, depression, and guilt for requiring care - emotions that, with proper support and attention, can resolve over time.
It goes on to say that, sadly, the bill would recklessly prevent countless Canadians from accessing that support or attention, and they will opt instead to end their lives in a time of unimaginable distress. This is a tragedy that we in the House can prevent.
The Liberal members on the justice committee voted against our amendments that would require patients to receive meaningful access to care before MAID would be carried out. Do we really want to offer death to disabled Canadians before we offer them care?
We know that the option for assisted death cannot be truly voluntary and free from coercion without the option for quality, long-term palliative care that truly meets the needs of a patient. The government seems more focused on putting people out of their misery than on investing in what Canadians in difficult situations need for alleviating that misery.
I would like to share some statistics and comments put out by the Canadian Association for Long Term Care. Its website says, “The 2017 Federal Budget included a historic $6 billion over 10 years for home and community care. Long-term care was not included in this investment.” The site notes that the national housing strategy does not include long-term care, and the home support worker pilot program for foreign caregivers does not include employment in long-term care. It also says the 2019 federal budget did not include investments in long-term care. The federal government flowed $343.2 billion in COVID-19-related spending in the first quarter of this year, but not one dollar was committed to supporting long-term care.
I will move on to the moving testimony of Roger Foley, who testified to the justice committee from his hospital bed. He told us that he was essentially given the choice between inadequate care and having his life ended. He was directly approached four times by caregivers who pressured him to receive MAID. This is illegal, but it is happening anyway, and Roger is not the only one who has had this happen. We need to ensure that before people are presented with the option for euthanasia, they have actually been provided with options for the services they need for living with dignity.
Without conscience rights protections, many physicians have indicated they will be forced to leave their profession if the bill passes, including Dr. Ramona Coelho, who brilliantly made this point to the justice committee along with the rest of the testimony condemning the bill. The Liberal chair of the justice committee ruled Conservative amendments for conscience protections inadmissible because the amendments went beyond the scope of the bill. When the Conservative members challenged the chair, the Liberal members voted down our challenge.
Expanding access to euthanasia to disabled Canadians who are not dying will cause many unintended consequences.
First, it is important to listen to the palliative care physicians who are telling us that the term “MAID” no longer applies and that the term “medically administered death” is more appropriate. Disabled Canadians are not dying, so we require a stronger term than “assistance in dying”.
Second, there are serious concerns that making medically administered death a standard of care will dishearten many physicians, causing them to leave the profession altogether. I have had physicians reach out to me and tell me this.
Third, the bill may cause a breakdown of the patient-doctor relationship. It is hard to trust doctors when they repeatedly recommend death because they do not have the resources to provide the care people need.
Let us work on this. Let us ensure that we are actually taking care of the most vulnerable Canadians. Let us give them hope; let us give them help. Let us make sure they know their lives have value.
Kristine Cowley suffered a spinal cord injury 33 years ago. She now has a doctorate and is a professor at a university. She was a wheelchair track Paralympian. She is married with three children and has travelled extensively. This was 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.
Chris Bittle LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
Madam Speaker, it is ironic that the hon. member stands here and talks about a doctor's job and says we should listen to the experts, as this hon. member speaks against doctors. He has spoken against Dr. Theresa Tam and has questioned her loyalty to this country as she is trying to protect millions of Canadians. We should listen to doctors, but he gets to pick and choose based on whether they ideologically support him.
How can he stand in this place, after questioning the validity of vaccines and our public health authorities, and even suggest that he understands a doctor's role? Why does the hon. member not trust doctors in this country, and why will he not let them do their jobs?
Derek Sloan Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Madam Speaker, I think the concerns that I raised directly from the mouths of doctors are sound. The critiques that many of us have had about the advice we have received through the Liberal government and other officials on COVID-19 has been warranted with respect to telling us all different types of things, telling us that the virus was not transmissible human to human or telling us that travel bans do not work. These are all things that are worthwhile to discuss.
What is more important are the comments from these doctors that they will be unable to do the work they have been called to do when it comes to protecting life, as opposed to ending life.
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Madam Speaker, one thing that was talked about earlier tonight was how long it takes to get psychiatric help in Canada, especially for people in rural and remote communities. The wait time is four to eight times longer than the 90-day reflection period the bill contains.
Is that a concern for my colleague? People do not even have access to the help they deserve and that they need. MAID could be something that people would turn to, rather than trying to get help because it takes so long to get the help they need.
Derek Sloan Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Madam Speaker, as far as I am concerned, in a situation where someone becomes ill or disabled, there can be a period of time of adjustment. We owe it to Canadians to give them the right supports and the right services so that they can make the decision that is best for them. We know from testimony that many people who choose MAID do so because of perhaps not having the resources to deal with their issues. There are many auxiliary issues that could be dealt with in a way other than ending their lives prematurely.
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, having studied the bill, I think there are enough safeguards in the bill to protect people, but I do hear the concerns of people in the diversability and disability community. There is a lot of fearmongering going on around this bill. People have a lack of trust and for good reason. People with disabilities have been left behind. They deal with institutional poverty. They do not get the care they need. They do not get the services they need. We have seen governments, Conservative and Liberal, cutting these kinds of services. We have seen how the provincial governments do not take their responsibility seriously in looking after people.
Would the hon. member agree something like a guaranteed livable income or a universal pharmacare program would help to take care of people and make sure they have their medicines and that there is an income floor under which they cannot fall, to ensure that people have a good quality of life with the medicine, services and supports they need?
Derek Sloan Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Madam Speaker, there are a lot of things that can be done. To me, one of the first things that can be done is funding an adequate long-term care program for any Canadian that needs or desires it. That would go a long way to reducing the requests for MAID and for addressing issues that many people are concerned about when they choose MAID in the first place.
Richard Bragdon Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Madam Speaker, once again, I am so thankful to have another opportunity to speak to the bill.
I really feel there are totally inadequate safeguards built into this piece of legislation. We heard powerful testimony at the committee, and we heard from key members of our society who have very legitimate and grave concerns regarding the implementation of Bill C-7.
It is a cause for a pause for all of us as parliamentarians right now. When some of those from our most vulnerable sectors are speaking up and raising very legitimate concerns about the bill, I believe we, as parliamentarians, have an obligation to pause and reflect carefully about the ramifications of a bill with consequences of such finality for people.
The reason I say this is that we heard powerful testimony from people like Roger Foley, who spoke so powerfully from his hospital bed, saying that he was doing it because he was fighting for others who are in the position that he is in. He wants the amendments that we are proposing to be put into this bill to make sure there are adequate protections for persons with disabilities. Never should anyone, any Canadian, be made to feel pressured or encouraged to make this decision of such finality.
I believe, right now, as parliamentarians, we have heard enough witnesses powerfully speak, enough testimony at committee, to say that it is time to put a pause on this and reflect carefully before we go ahead and rush into the implementation of the bill.
I go back to the fact that I simply do not understand why the government did not take the step to appeal this decision from a lower court to the Supreme Court, and to make sure that every measure and every step of precaution is put in place when it comes to such an important piece of legislation. Here it is and we are feeling this pressure to put the bill through so quickly, without adequately addressing the very legitimate concerns that are coming from persons with disabilities.
I think of Ms. Krista Carr's powerful testimony before committee. She is the executive vice-president for Inclusion Canada. She said that some of the worst fears of the disabled are being realized in Bill C-7. She raised these concerns with such passion and conviction. She was speaking on behalf of literally thousands of Canadians and persons living with disabilities and their families.
It would behoove this Parliament, based on those kinds of testimonies, to pause and reflect, and to ask if we are doing everything we can to make sure that we are putting adequate safeguards in place so that people will have the time to reconsider and to reflect.
One thing I know, from my background and the experience I come from, having worked in the ministry for many years, having walked with people through some of the darkest corridors that life can offer, whether they are dealing with mental health-related challenges or substance abuse or addiction-related challenges or whether they are dealing with disabilities or they have just gotten a life-altering diagnosis, is that those initial hours and days can be so overwhelming for people.
In fact, people can feel like there is no pathway forward for them. They may wonder if life is worth continuing. Anytime people get devastating news or are faced with a reality that is extremely uncomfortable or devastating, when they initially hear it, one of the most important things that is needed for anyone walking through that period in their life is for the adequate supports to be in place to help them navigate it, so that they know they are not alone and that others have been there before and that there will be adequate supports, if needed, for them to help them through that valley.
What happens, and what I have discovered and witnessed at a personal level that has greatly impacted my life, is that, when people who have faced devastating diagnoses or have gone through an extremely difficult season in their lives and have chosen to live on through adversity, pain and a devastating diagnosis, many times the people around them were inspired and greatly helped. They helped others who were devastated and feeling like they could not get through the challenge they were facing, but because they made that difficult decision in those dark times, because they had the time to pause, reflect and hear from those who love them and have their best interest at heart, they made the decision to live on.
As a result of that, others were positively impacted and inspired, oftentimes, throughout their life. People who have inspired many other Canadians and those throughout the world were oftentimes those who had to face the most difficult of circumstances. I feel that there are so many other stories out there yet to be realized and yet to be seen that will inspire other people to continue on, even when it looks like they have every reason to give up.
Obviously, there are things concerning the issues of life and death that none of us have easy answers for. We, as parliamentarians, are obviously not fully equipped to be able to see the whole scope and lens. However, that only further points to the necessity to slow things down and carefully consider the ramifications of this type of bill.
There are legitimate concerns being raised by persons with disabilities and those who work with them. They are also being raised by others, such as physicians, doctors and nurses, who are working to save lives every day and feel like this could infringe upon their conscience rights or their beliefs. I feel we, as parliamentarians, have an obligation to make sure those concerns are heard and reflected in whatever bill we pass. Why we would want to rush through something of this great consequence simply baffles me, so I am hoping that Parliament will take the time and reflect, especially during the season we are entering.
Our country has been through a very challenging year. We have gone through a lot of things. Now we are heading into the holiday season, a time of reflection and a time, hopefully, where possible, to be with family. I hope we will take the time to have those conversations with those whom we love, hear the concerns that they have and recognize that there are those around us who are in a very difficult place. Perhaps we can reach out to them, share a bit of hope and stay in touch with them to help them navigate a difficult spot. Maybe they are going through a rough time, and they have got a lot of things that they are having to process, and really what they need more than anything is adequate support.
Let us look and reflect, as parliamentarians, on this aspect. Are we offering Canadians enough supports in the areas of palliative care and hospice and are we providing adequate support for those persons who are living with disabilities so that we are giving people every opportunity to live their lives to the fullest?
With that, I thank members for this opportunity, and I challenge the House to carefully reflect and hit the pause button here before we rush through with any type of legislation. We have heard enough powerful testimony to tell us it is worth pausing for.
Chris Bittle LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
Madam Speaker, it is bizarre to hear speaker after speaker from the Conservative Party talk about medical assistance in dying as though it is some fleeting concept, as though it is an impulsive decision that Canadians make in a moment. It is a though they are saying, “If only there were the safeguards in place, and if only there were a medical professional there, or any other support.”
Why is the Conservative Party portraying this as though it is not the most significant decision in people's lives, which they have taken with questions to their medical professionals and their faith leaders? Why are they portraying it as though it is something that they just think of overnight? Why are they portraying it that way in an attempt to torpedo this legislation?