Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2020

Criminal Code

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, palliative care is such an important part of our society and we are lacking greatly in that area. In particular, I grew up in a rural and remote community as well and there was just not the option for palliative care there. People were moving out of their communities, out of their homes and away from their families. Quite honestly, families are the primary caregivers whom people need and want to have with them when they are in palliative care, but they also need access to those facilities. I find it so alarming that here we are, today, prioritizing medical assistance in dying instead of prioritizing palliative care in the country.

[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, during the debate on this important issue, we often hear reference to palliative care and how critically important that is. It is encouraging, to a certain degree, to hear the Conservatives talk about why we need to enhance and ensure we have an extensive palliative care system.

What role does the member believe the federal government has in looking at ways we can improve and expand palliative care in Canada? Does the Conservative Party believe we should be playing a stronger role in that?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the first thing we need to do is listen to the advocates for palliative care. They have very compelling testimony for enhanced and expanded palliative care. We also need to ensure that we work hand in hand with the provinces. The federal government has a role to play, particularly in ensuring that the infrastructure for palliative care facilities can be built in our small towns and rural and remote communities and ensuring that people of all communities have access to quality palliative care.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that what we are doing is admirable, since these are major issues of life or death.

I commend everyone here today. What they are putting forward is very well reasoned and carefully contemplated. Personally, I like to connect with people. What concerns me about this prolonged debated is time. I know that we must take our time with an issue like this, but we must also rely on what we have learned.

Our society is highly educated. Our scientists are up to date. In our society we have the ability to get the tools we need to do things properly. I want to ask you, are you questioning the abilities of our leading scientists, our doctors and our experts in medical assistance in dying?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member to address the Chair.

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am not one to doubt scientists and people who have committed their life to their field. However, what we are missing is prioritizing people's right to live, their right to life. We are missing that as we have this discussion today.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am really honoured to be standing in the House as we debate this very important bill, Bill C-7, in response to the Truchon v. the Attorney General of Canada.

My husband and I were discussing this last night. I can recall the night of the vote on Bill C-14. I had held town halls in my riding, sent post cards, all these different things. It was about a fifty-fifty split among constituents who wanted to see MAID pass. That day I voted for that bill. I thought there were some very important provisions in it which we had to talk about. However, as we move forward with Bill C-7, I have strong concerns.

I decided to return to the speech I made in 2016, and I wanted to share an excerpt of it. We have been going back to people's speeches to see where they were at that time. I am pretty much where I was in 2016 with respect to better safeguards. I will quote from my speech on May 20, 2016:

My role as a parliamentarian is to do the fact-finding, speaking to the constituents I represent, and making sure that I get the right message to make this decision and do what is right for my constituency and all Canadians. From that, I decided to do a lot of town halls ... I sent letters ... one-on-one meetings ... I also received many email ... campaigns.

After that, I received a letter from Dr. Carroll Harder, a physician in my riding. I want to share her from 2016 email. She wrote:

I am e-mailing in response to your letter I received requesting information on my concerns about Bill C-14. Thank you for requesting physician input. I certainly appreciate having the opportunity to weigh-in as a stakeholder in these decisions. This topic is obviously very important to me and I am trying to understand all of the implications of this for me and for my patients.

I appreciate the steps that have been put in place to provide checks and balances that will hopefully prevent abuse of this system by family or health care providers. I am concerned that many groups are calling for less restrictions than those that are currently in place dictating who applies for this and who is ineligible. I would ask that you, as our representative, continue to advocate for stringent restrictions with multiple layers of accountability to prevent abuse of this legislation.

Based on that foundation, I started to look at Bill C-7. I have watched the hours and hours of committee business. Excellent amendments were proposed but were turned down. I thought my vote would be yes, but I have turned it into a no. I have not been swayed by the government and I have not been swayed by anything other than those disability groups that are very concerned about the bill. Then I go back to where I was in 2016. The point is that our job is to protect all Canadians. Our job is to represent Canadians.

What I see in the bill just does not fit. When I look at what the doctor has requested and at all the testimony from the justice committee, I do not think we are doing due justice. Tomorrow we will be celebrating International Day for Persons with Disabilities. We are not doing them justice. We are not listening to them and that is why I have this huge concern.

Unfortunately, because these amendments were left out of the bill, I have changed my vote to no. We had a great opportunity to make this a better bill in committee.

I take all these social issues to heart. I speak to people and they help make these decisions. I think about a gentleman whom I just spoke to on Saturday, Rick Arkell. I recall speaking to Rick years and years ago when I was constituency assistant working for Joe Preston. I recall him calling the office. When I spoke to him on Saturday, he said he wanted MAID.

I know that when I voted on Bill C-14 and made that decision to support, it was the right decision. However, when he and I talked about this, he too understood why I could not move forward on this. This gentleman has multiple complications such as diabetes and heart issues. When combined, they are making his life very difficult. I asked him if he could please send me some more information because I wanted to share his story. This story is not about people who do not want it; it is about people who do want, but ensuring precautions are there.

Instead of his being upset with me for saying I was going to vote against it, he asked how he could help because he knew we wanted better legislation. It comes down to that.

This is a very sad story. As I spoke to him on Saturday, I was not sure what my next steps were. I was not sure if I should go over there and try to counsel him or if I should be a parliamentarian and just ensure that the legislation was right. I am still caught on that.

For a number of years he has been trying to get medical assistance in dying under Bill C-14. This is his email:

“My euthanasia target is 60 days or less. I value and respect your point, however, I most assuredly am not going to enjoy the summer or any time thereafter and God willing, I will be dead in six months or less, whether by MAID, naturally or do it yourself. I have taken 250,000 milligrams of acetaminophen prior to our meeting as I did with Dr. Kay, thinking of the tears, groaning, crying in pain, stumbling and face plants, which were not necessary in fact, not to mention I was attempting to demonstrate that I can live independently. I do the same any day. I go out in public, appointments, shopping, etc. As I mentioned, I am not seeking immediate death since I am working to get my affairs in order as quickly as possible and to find homes for my cats. In order to do that, I need to remain independent. In the interim, I am seeking ways to cope such as I showed you. I still definitely want to seek assurance and peace of mind that MAID approval would provide.”

It is really interesting because we are talking today about witnesses and all those different things that are necessary to ensure people can go through this process.

We talked about palliative care. I am watching this man who is suffering, who does not have an option because palliative care is not available. We can sit here and say that MAID is very different. MAID is different if people cannot get it and do not have palliative care. That is why people say let us go for MAID because there is nothing better.

We just heard it from my friend from Port Moody—Coquitlam. She talked about someone who was willing to go through MAID rather than being in lockdown any longer. Those are huge concerns and we need to listen to that. These are people's stories. We need good legislation and we do not need to put them at more risk. That is what I see in the bill.

When we have had disabilities groups come forward, when the Senate, under a pre-committee study, has 91 different people testifying against this legislation, that should tell us something. It is not one or two people from specific groups who are talking. They are Canadians and Canadian families that are bringing forward their personal stories on what they go through each and every day. We are not making this right. By making MAID a better program so people can get it easier is one thing. However, we should ensure we have a full program that allows choice. I am fearful that this does not offer choice. It offers a choice to take MAID or to live uncomfortably. When I look at Rick, I think this is what is happening to him.

I am also very fortunate because I represent the great organization ARCH. ARCH is located in the community of Lambeth in London. It wrote to senators, and I want to leave members with this:

Dear Senators,

ARCH Disability Law Centre (“ARCH”) makes this submission as part of your pre-study of Bill C-7 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).

ARCH is a legal clinic dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of persons with disabilities in Ontario. ARCH also advocates for the rights of persons with disabilities nationally and internationally. ARCH has expertise in Canadian human rights and equality rights law as it relates to persons with disabilities, national and provincial accessibility laws...

I recognize that I do not have a lot of time, so I will sum this us. ARCH is extremely concerned with this. It put forward concerns because it was looking at effective safeguards, which it does not see in the bill. It is clear to me that if people are telling us that this is not going to work for them, and there is a whole lot of them, then we should start listening. That is why I am concerned with the government moving forward with the legislation without including the amendments that have been put forward. It is not doing what is best for Canadians.

I will continue to encourage the government to please think again. Do what is best for all Canadians and let us put the interests of all Canadians first.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, we know that part of the fear and anxiety for people in the disability community, who oftentimes are living in poverty and without the resources they need to live in dignity, is that they are going to be faced with a really impossible choice between a life of poverty and suffering or a premature death. While Parliament cannot change the Truchon decision, one of the things we can do is put in place appropriate income supports for people living with disabilities so they are not forced to live below the poverty line.

Would the member support the federal government moving to establish a disability income support program that would ensure that any person living with a disability in Canada would not forced to live below the poverty line?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think this is one of the things we see. As I indicated, I was a constituency assistant for 11 years, so I had the opportunity to see a lot of Canadians who were on the Ontario disability support program, had benefits through WSIB or had Canada pension plan disability benefits. This is not a lot of money.

We know that the cost of living has increased substantially, especially through the COVID-19 pandemic, so this needs to be reassessed. Lots of people are living without the means to have a proper roof over their heads, while paying their bills, putting food on their tables and enjoying life.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for always telling us about what the people in her riding are talking about.

With respect to this legislation, I wonder if she could talk about the people in long-term care, who have been very isolated in this pandemic. I want to pick up on the theme that my colleague from Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam mentioned about the dangers there, as people like them might want to take advantage of assisted suicide.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is one of the concerns we are seeing. We know there have been many challenges during this pandemic, specifically with mental health and people who are in isolation.

I can look within my own family. My parents are not in long-term care but they are 80 and 84. I worry about their isolation within their own home, given the fact that they are not leaving their home very often. I think my mom has left twice in the last eight months. I can only imagine what it is like for residents in long-term care homes, where people are not able to come in to see them. They are not able to see their grandchildren. A lot of times, the spark of their lives is their family.

We have to work urgently to make sure we are dealing with rapid testing for COVID-19 and make sure that all of the supports for people living with disabilities or in long-term care homes are taken care of. We need to do better, and I am afraid we are not doing it under the government.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague who just gave her speech.

The thing that most concerns me is the issue of access to palliative care in Mégantic—L'Érable. I know that many people back home have some concerns about that because this type of care is not always available. I would like to know whether the same is true in her corner of the country and to hear her comments on that.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, throughout the entire country we are seeing issues within our long-term care homes, and we have seen throughout this pandemic what is happening. When we are looking at medical assistance in dying, all of the factors that are bundling up on our seniors are making life look hopeless.

I am a person of hope. Sometimes I call myself a Pollyanna. I always believe there has to be a light at the end of the tunnel. I do not think the government is providing enough light to make sure people know we can do better.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak again to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying) at report stage.

I will touch on two key amendments the Conservatives were seeking, namely to maintain the reflection period of 10 clear days between when the request for MAID is signed and then received, and to extend the assessment period from 90 to 120 days for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. Originally, these were amendments we put forward at committee. In fact, these are just two of several amendments we worked really hard to achieve in good faith. They were all rejected by the Liberals.

Therefore, I would first contend that the bill we have received back from the committee demonstrates a lack of concern for the voices of opposition, and not merely those of our Conservative opposition, but rather those of the differently abled and the medical experts whose concerns we compassionately championed. We must thoughtfully consider the alarm of Canadians who are passionately opposed to what Bill C-7 is now proposing.

Bill C-7 would eliminate the requirement of waiting 10 clear days after being approved for the procedure, effectively allowing for a system of death on demand. As we heard at committee, this is troubling for those whose lives have been affected by disability. For those who want to live with dignity, Bill C-7 presents and very clear and present danger. That is what they are saying.

Let us refer to what witnesses told us at committee.

Roger Foley, who lives with a severe neurodegenerative disease, told the committee this:

With the Assisted Dying Regime in Canada, I have experienced a lack of care and assistance for which I need to live.... I have been abused and berated because I have disabilities, and told my care needs are too much work. My life has been devalued. I have been coerced into assisted death by the abuse, neglect, lack of care and threats.

Mr. Foley went on to say, “Assisted Dying is easier to access than safe and appropriate disability supports to live!... You have turned your back on disabled and elderly Canadians!” I found that very difficult to hear.

Dr. Ewan Goligher, a physician-scientist, was clear in his assertion that Bill C-7 singles out those with disabilities when, in many cases, death can be prevented. He said:

Bill C-7 declares that an entire class of people—those with physical disabilities—are potentially appropriate for suicide, that their lives are potentially not worth living. Indeed, were it not for their disability, we would not be willing to end them. I cannot imagine a more degrading and discriminatory message for our society to communicate to our fellow citizens living with disabilities.

As the CBC similarly noted, “While reflecting understandable empathy for often-severe suffering, the bill conforms to an ableist presumption that a life with disability or chronic illness is less worth living.”

Krista Carr, executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada, spoke on behalf of families of those with intellectual disabilities who fear their loved ones will be left without a choice. She said, “families now fear that their family members will be encouraged to end their lives. Rather than addressing their suffering, as we do for every other Canadian who tries to end their suffering through suicide, their lives are now judged as not worth saving.”

This claim by Ms. Carr was reinforced by the testimony of Taylor Hyatt, who bravely shared a personal story. Having been admitted to the ER with difficulty breathing, she was advised by the doctor that an infection she had could require oxygen. Ms. Hyatt enthusiastically agreed to the use of oxygen, but found it troubling that her answer came as a surprise to the doctor. I know Taylor and she is full of energy and life. It was at this point that Taylor came to a stark realization. She said:

In that moment, I would have been able to refuse treatment and be permitted to die. Or, in a moment of weakness, bought into the stereotype that my life wasn't worth living and requested and received a lethal injection. Breathing supports would be considered standard treatment for a non-disabled person in my situation, especially somebody in their mid-20s as I was.... If this bill goes through, how many more disabled people at their lowest moments could have a drastically different and decidedly unwanted ending to their story?

We on this side of the House recognize that Canadians' tolerance for assisted dying has evolved over the past four and a half years. In fact, a 2020 Angus Reid Institute poll found that four in five Canadians believe that it should be easier to make their own end-of-life-decisions, compared with 73% four years ago. However, the same poll found that 65% believe the option of assisted suicide and euthanasia has the potential to intensify pressure on those with disabilities to choose death as a means to avoid being a burden to others. They want lawmakers and the courts to give significant weight to this concern.

In my view, C-7 abandons the concerns of witnesses and the majority view of Canadians. Appropriate safeguards, such as the 10-day reflection period and a 120-day assessment period for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable, are absolutely warranted, so why are the Liberals denying this?

My second point as to why the bill should not proceed is that it is the government’s clear intention to go beyond the scope of the Quebec Court of Appeal’s Truchon decision.

One of the key elements of the bill, for me, is the about-face the government has taken. Less than five years ago, Bill C-14 was passed. It was a bill that I, and many in my party, have opposed in principle from its introduction to the present day. However, many Canadians took solace in the fact that Bill C-14 contained a vital element of parliamentary accountability. Clause 10 mandated a five-year review, wherein the provisions of the assisted suicide law, as well as the state of palliative care in Canada, would be fulsomely studied by the House of Commons and Senate before the end of June 2021. This was our responsibility.

This vital element of Bill C-14 has been ignored by the government. As parliamentarians, we have now been tasked to consider a massive expansion of assisted suicide and euthanasia without a clear enough understanding of Bill C-14’s effectiveness, enforceability and areas of acute concern.

It bears repeating something from my speech in October. Rather than appeal Truchon to the Supreme Court of Canada or wait for the all-important five-year review of assisted death in Canada, the Liberals have chosen to run with the Truchon decision and legislate on an expansion of assisted death for the entire country. Not only that, but the bill far exceeds the scope of Truchon.

Indeed, during Oral Questions on November 23, the member for Vancouver Granville, the former minister of justice and attorney general, and author of the original MAID legislation, called into question the government’s effort to eliminate the 10-day reflection period and reconfirmation of consent through Bill C-7. She said:

Nothing in the Truchon decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal, which the government chose not to appeal, requires this, and the Supreme Court of Canada, in Carter, insisted on the requirement of clear consent. Palliative care physicians, disability advocates and other experts insist that this is an important safeguard, and, like other legislated MAID reports on mature minors and mental disorder, advance requests also raise significant challenges.

The government clearly has its own agenda here. The Liberals appear determined to eliminate safeguards for the most vulnerable when they were not instructed to do so. This is coupled with the fact that the House has not had the benefit of a fulsome study of the original MAID legislation. The House should proceed with the adoption of our very reasonable amendments, as Canadians want them.

Finally, I would like to reiterate a point from my last intervention on the bill. The Liberals continue to lag on a national strategy for palliative care, but at the same time they are moving forward on more accessibility to MAID. The Liberals broke their promise to invest $3 billion in long-term care, including palliative care, and have yet to bring Canadians the national strategy on palliative care they promised and agreed to. Just as 80% of Canadians believe it should be easier to make end-of-life decisions, 70% of Canadians continue to live without any access to palliative care. That is why the Liberals’ approach is nonsensical.

The Angus Reid poll found that 62% of Canadians want those in this place to give due attention to the concern that our health care system might begin to ignore long-term care and chronic disease among the elderly as MAID becomes more widely accessible and routine. We are seeing this happen.

Furthermore, seven in 10 Canadians want us, as lawmakers, to consider whether increased access to assisted suicide and euthanasia will mean less investment in traditional palliative care. I dread that, but in my view that situation is already unfolding.

I refer to the Delta Hospice Society, where 10 hospice beds are at risk of being defunded because of its refusal to provide assisted suicide to its patients. The Delta Hospice Society believes that MAID is distinct from, and violates the very purpose of, the palliative care that it is very proud to provide. Indeed, President Angelina Ireland has been clear that the intention is not to overturn MAID. The society is not a threat. It only wants to uphold its approach to the end-of-life care that so many Canadians want and deserve but do not have access to.

A majority of Canadians would side with the position of the Delta Hospice Society. Again referring to the Angus Reid poll, 55% of Canadians reported religious hospitals should be free to refuse to participate in MAID on moral grounds.

Any attempt to cheapen the value of palliative care should be of concern to the House. In the words of Dr. Goligher:

The goal of health care is to help the patient flourish. Palliative care is about helping the patients flourish even as they go through the dying process. I think anything that accelerates or hastens that process and doesn't give the opportunity for reflection and so on is of serious concern.

MAID is antithetical—

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

I am sorry, but we have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the member's example about the disabled individual who had a very different experience than a Canadian without a disability might experience. I heard a similar story about an individual who, it was apparent, had a physical disability and when suffering a seizure, the very first question asked was if they had a do not resuscitate, DNR, order.

Why is it important that Parliament give a thoughtful review, as was committed at the five-year mark, instead of having this hasty process, which goes beyond the Quebec court decision and was not appealed by the government? Why is having a proper review, where stakeholders, including from the disability community, can speak to parliamentarians, testify about their concerns, have their questions answered and have the government answer for why it would make those decisions? Why is that process important and why would that be preferential to what we are seeing happening right now?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, there is such concern in my heart for the fact that the government is choosing on so many occasions to go over and above its own responsibilities within the realm of our Parliament, where 338 members made the decision to bring Bill C-14 forward with the understanding that the proper oversight would take place. This is a huge issue for Canada and we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to do the due research to find out how well it has been functioning and if it has been abused. We are clearly hearing stories over and over again now and yet the government has chosen to move ahead and rush this.

Those who wanted to speak to that review have had to try to make their voices heard and known in the midst of the presentation of Bill C-7. We know that many of them were shut down at committee. Testimony time was not extended and very many reports and dockets were not submitted because there was not time. Thank goodness that time is being taken in the Senate. I feel that the government has abused its responsibilities.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a very significant piece of legislation. I support it completely. Amendments were attempted by the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for the Greens in the committee, but it is terribly important that we not conflate medical assistance in dying, as a number of Conservatives have done in this debate. My hon. friend did not do this in her speech, but did refer to “assisted suicide”. Some speeches have just called it “suicide” and euthanasia. That is not the effect of this legislation. This legislation is for medical assistance in dying for a very limited group of people who would qualify and specifically does not include mental illness.

I ask my hon. colleague to consider again whether there is a cost to people across this country who believe the rhetoric of the Conservatives and now experience additional anxiety and a thought that Canada is losing its moral compass, because the rhetoric being used in this debate is unworthy of the very good people who are using this language.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I totally disagree with my colleague's premise. The people we hear from over and over again and come to us for compassionate intervention are the very people feeling threatened by this particular legislation. I know that many who are disabled face very hard challenges, but many of them as well are very capable in many other ways, as I can assure you Taylor Hyatt is.

My concern is that assisted suicide or assisted dying is being encouraged. I am concerned as well for veterans who are told over and over again not to go that direction and yet we are facing a situation where we are not keeping those safeguards that would ensure that the people asking to be protected have the right to be protected in the midst of this legislation.

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Provencher. He will have only two minutes before we go into Private Members' Business. He will be able to proceed afterward.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, John Diefenbaker once said that freedom is the right to be wrong, but not the right to do wrong.

As we review Bill C-7, the proposed expansion of the medical assistance in dying regime, we must strive to uphold that value: the value of dignity and worth of all people. Canadians value our right to think freely, to consider our thoughts and opinions and to change our minds if we so choose. As a free society, we want to make room for all people to feel valued as contributing members of society.

Dr. Leonie Herx, past president of the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians and chair of a division of palliative medicine at Queen's University, sees life stories every day that show people can change their mind with respect to MAID. She refers to one beloved patient who arrived at her clinic asking for MAID, but quickly abandoned his quest after being assured of his worth and that he would not be a burden.

Recently, the member for Vancouver Granville asked the justice minister in the House why the 10-day reflection period and reconfirmation of consent were waived in this proposed legislation. She talked about the fact that the removal of these safeguards was not required by the Truchon decision, the ruling that the Liberals chose not to appeal, by the way. Instead, the Liberals introduced Bill C-7 to expand MAID to abandon the critical safeguards that Parliament passed into law just a few years ago.

I noted the member's comments with great interest, given that she was the justice minister who had brought forward the original bill to legalize MAID in Canada. In response to her questions and critiques, the current justice minister replied that the 10-day waiting period only increased suffering, and that he—

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

I am sorry, to the hon. member for Provencher, but I do have to interrupt. The hon. member will have eight minutes left in his time after we resume debate.

It being 6:10, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

moved that Bill C-236, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (evidence-based diversion measures) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, before the pandemic, I introduced Bill C-235 to decriminalize all drugs for personal possession, and this legislation, Bill C-236 as an alternative to create a diversion framework to limit police and prosecutorial discretion in keeping with evidence-based principles.

I was motivated to introduce these bills because of the opioid crisis. As we live through the COVID pandemic and are rightly concerned about how different levels of government are working together to protect us, it is important that we do not forget about the scale of tragedy the opioid crisis has brought to so many families across our country.

From January 2016 to March 2020, there have been 16,364 apparent opioid-related deaths, nearly 11 a day. There have also been over 20,000 opioid-related poisoning and hospitalizations, or 13 per day. Public health officials do not update us every day the way they do with COVID, but perhaps they should. It is a public health crisis, and it is a tragedy.

StatsCan, pre-pandemic, told us that for the first time in 40 years, our life expectancy had stalled. StatsCan said:

Life expectancy at birth did not increase from 2016 to 2017 for either males or females, a first in over four decades. This was largely attributable to the opioid crisis.

We know that the crisis has been exacerbated by the COVID pandemic. In the words of none other than Health Canada:

At the intersection of these public health crises, people who use substances are likely to experience a number of increased risks.

As we see our government listen to public health experts and respond with emergency measures to address the COVID pandemic, it stands in stark contrast, unfortunately, to the way in which we have handled these opioid-related deaths.

Let me start with quoting some public health experts we have been listening to in the course of the COVID crisis, but that we have failed to heed in the opioid crisis. Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. Theresa Tam has called for a societal discussion on decriminalization. B.C.'s public health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry published a report called, “Stopping The Harm”, explicitly calling for decriminalization, writing:

There is widespread global recognition that the failed “war on drugs” and the resulting criminalization nd stigmatizati o n of people who use drugs has not reduced drug use but instead has increased health harms.

Let me put it more bluntly: our outdated and ineffective laws are killing people. If we embraced evidence-based policies, we would not have a highly toxic illegal drug supply. Again, this is Bonnie Henry speaking through her report:

Substance use occurs on a spectrum, from beneficial (e.g., social activity, cultural practices) to non-problematic (e.g., recreational or occasional use), to problematic...to chronic dependence and addiction....due to the toxicity...there is considerable risk of overdose and overdose death related to illegal drug use in any capacity.

Toronto's medical officer of health, Dr. Eileen de Villa has also published a report that states:

The evidence...strongly support the need to shift to a public health approach to drugs in Canada.

She goes on to call on us, the federal government, to decriminalize the possession of all drugs for personal use.

The UN and WHO published a joint statement in 2017, calling on countries to put in place guarantees against the discrimination in law, policies and regulations in health, including by reviewing and repealing laws that have been proven to have negative health outcomes and counter established public health evidence. Again, not my words, their words, “These include laws that criminalize...drug use or possession of drugs for personal use”.

In its report, “Care not Corrections”, the Canadian Mental Health Association writes:

Criminalizing people who use...drugs stigmatizes substance use; it also fosters a climate in which they feel unsafe in accessing life-saving interventions and treatment services, and further marginalizes people living in poverty [or at social disadvantage].

The Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction has written:

A growing body of evidence suggests that decriminalization is an effective way to mitigate the harms of substance use and the policies and practices used to deal with it, especially those harms associated with criminal justice prosecution for simple possession.

Stepping for a moment outside of the advice of public health experts and looking to those in the justice system, we have the Chief Justice of Ontario, Justice Strathy, as he opened the courts, say this:

There is increasing recognition that we, as a society, need to re-consider how we define “crime” and whether some offences, labelled criminal, should be regarded as health-related matters and addressed therapeutically. In recent months, as opioid deaths have soared, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and many of Canada's chief medical health officers, have suggested that after a century of drug prohibition, we should stop treating the use and simple possession of narcotics as a criminal offence and regard them as public health matters. We need to consider whether these and other social challenges are most effectively addressed outside the courts.

Now, the chief justice referenced our police chiefs, and in July 2020, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police wrote its own report calling for decriminalization and evidence-based drug policies, which said, “While law enforcement across Canada exercise their discretion when considering possession charges, such as the presence of harmful behaviour or the availability of treatment services, the application of the law is inconsistent across communities.”

The report continues, “We must adopt new and innovative approaches if we are going to disrupt the current trend of drug overdoses impacting communities across Canada. Merely arresting individuals for simple possession of illicit drugs has proven to be ineffective.”

These are not my words. These are the words of our police chiefs, and the words are “proven to be ineffective.”

The report goes on to say, “Research from other countries who have boldly chosen to take a health rather than an enforcement-based approach to problematic drug use have demonstrated positive results.”

When I spoke to Waterloo Chief of Police, Bryan Larkin, I told him that we absolutely need national action, but if we do not get national action in the immediate term, as a way forward, what if municipalities made the request, whether it was Vancouver or Toronto, to the federal government asking for an exemption? He told me that the police chiefs would support that approach as well. We now have had the City of Vancouver call on the federal government to decriminalize simple possession in its geography. Our federal government should honour and grant that request.

The police chiefs also recognize the international evidence, and it is important to pause for a moment and recognize that international evidence. I will point to Portugal, which decriminalized possession of drugs for personal use in 2000. Since then, it has seen overdose-related deaths go down and drug use stay the same. It has not seen problematic drug use increase in any significant way whatsoever. Importantly, it has seen the number of people seeking treatment increase by 60%.

Not only do we know that this move will address stigma, but the number of people seeking treatment will increase because it would be addressing stigma as well. It would also address the racial injustice in our drug laws.

If one tracks the history of our drugs laws, one knows that they are racist. The report of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs goes into some detail about the racist attitudes that underpinned government action to criminalize certain drugs, including a fear, at one time, of Chinese Canadians.

As the Canadian HIV Legal Network has recently written, “from 2014 to 2019, police in Canada made more than 540,000 arrests for drug offences; 69% of those were for simple drug possession.

It is troubling that Black and other racialized communities in Canada are disproportionately charged, prosecuted and incarcerated for drug offences, depriving them of their rights to equality and non-discrimination in the criminal legal system, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, security of the person, and the highest attainable standard of health. As the report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System concluded more than two decades ago, “Persons described as black are the most over-representated among prisoners charged with drug offences”.

More simply, we fear different drugs today, because we used to fear different people. While we have shifted the purpose of the law beyond explicit racism and xenophobia, its application continues to represent a racial injustice.

Now, we have seen some government action. We have seen an expansion of safe consumption sites, and we have seen 40 safe consumption sites approved. Very recently, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada updated its guidelines to say very explicitly, “Resort to a criminal prosecution of the possession of a controlled substance...should generally be reserved for the most serious manifestations of the offence” where it is for personal use under section 4 of the CDSA.

Our federal government has implemented pilot projects towards safer supply and has funded pilot projects, including here in our east end at South Riverdale. It has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to address the opioid crisis through a public health approach, including $150 million in budget 2018 to expand treatment options, and millions more towards a national public education campaign to end the stigma that surrounds people who use drugs. These are unquestionably worthy actions.

We should pause here because we have our federal government spending millions to end the stigma for people who use drugs, but at the same time, we are refusing to remove the criminal sanction that perpetuates that stigma more than any other policy. It is cognitive dissonance in action, and it cost lives.

I will explain what Bill C-236 does. To begin, I moved Bill C-235 and Bill C-236 at the same time because Bill C-235 simply removes the criminal offence for simple possession. This is in keeping with those public health experts, and the international evidence, who are saying that simple possession for personal use should not be a criminal sanction.

While fully removing drug possession for personal use from the CDSA is my preferred approach, and it certainly has the support of experts, in the end, a private member's bill has one opportunity to move a law forward. It is very important to me that this conversation moves to committee and that we see a change in our law.

To that end, Bill C-236 is a more modest change in our law that seeks to address stigma and end the unnecessary criminalization and incarceration of people who use drugs. Ultimately the bill seeks to obtain government support to accomplish those ends.

Very simply, the bill creates an evidence-based diversion framework to ensure that before police officers or prosecutors move forward with laying or pursuing a charge, they must consider whether it is sufficient to give a warning, to refer an individual in need to a public health agency or provider, or pursue alternative measures to incarceration. It was developed in keeping with the model of diversion found in our Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Similar to the new guidelines to prosecutors, it seeks to ensure that police and prosecutorial discretion is exercised with the evidence in mind. If this bill passes, that discretion must be exercised in keeping with a set of guiding principles. I think they are important, so I will simply read them:

(a) problematic substance use should be addressed primarily as a health and social issue;

(b) interventions should be founded on evidence-based best practices and should aim to protect the health, dignity and human rights of individuals who use drugs, and to reduce harm to those individuals, their families and their communities;

(c) criminal sanctions imposed in respect of the possession of drugs for personal use can increase the stigma associated with drug use and are not consistent with established public health evidence;

(d) interventions should address the root causes of problematic substance use, including by encouraging measures such as education, treatment, aftercare, rehabilitation and social reintegration; and

(e) judicial resources are more appropriately used in relation to offences that pose a risk to public safety.

The criminalization of drug possession for personal use only harms the very people we want to help. It is not only ineffective, it costs lives. We need a new approach. We need to follow the evidence to save lives.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite mentioned the Portugal model in his speech, but what he did not say is that Portugal had a 170 recovery centres for 11 million people. They had universal mental health care for everyone in the country to get at the root traumas of their addiction. They had public education about the harms of drugs. They also had a tribunal for people caught with possession that could sanction or recommend people to go somewhere.

The opioid crisis has been going on since this member got elected. Why has the Liberal government done nothing to create recovery beds in Canada so people can get off drugs?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I mentioned $150 million to expand treatment options. Of course, some Conservative provincial governments have failed to take us up on that money to save lives and, in fact, have fought against evidenced-based policies that save lives. As the member references Portugal and ignores much of the evidence out of Portugal, she also fails to mention all the experts in Canada in a Canadian health context who have called for this action.

Lastly, let me just say, specifically, that Bill C-236 would not decriminalize anything. I encourage the member to read Bill C-236. It would basically tell police and prosecutors not to pursue possession charges unless they are in keeping with the guiding principles and the evidence.