Debates of Dec. 4th, 2020

Criminal Code

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is appalling that, for 50 years, advocates of palliative care have maintained that it was the solution for dying with dignity, but we have not done anything more to provide access to it.

However, I am not in favour of offering palliative care to the person who is dying before giving him the free choice. Palliative care is not the only solution and sometimes causes intolerable suffering. I know all about it because a person I loved very much experienced that.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are few, if any, issues that have come before Parliament that more clearly touch on our fundamental values as Canadians than medical assistance in dying.

Let me start today by restating what I said at the beginning of my speech in favour of Bill C-7 at second reading. When it comes to medical assistance in dying, the priority for New Democrats has always been, and remains, avoiding unnecessary suffering being inflicted on those who are already afflicted with terminal illnesses, and at the same time also avoiding prolonging suffering for the families who must bear witness to the suffering of their loved ones.

Here we are in late December, up against the deadline set by the Superior Court of Québec in the Truchon case. It does not really matter whose fault that is. Some of this delay was obviously due to COVID, but a good measure of the delay was due to the Liberals proroguing Parliament.

To me, it is manifestly unacceptable to hear some members arguing that we do not have to meet the deadline because it would “only affect Quebec.” In any case, the time has come for the House to act on Bill C-7. It is also time to act on another task as well. Not only has our consideration of the bill been delayed, but equally important, the five-year statutory review of the original medical assistance in dying legislation, Bill C-14, is now long overdue.

Members will know that some of us called on the government to get this review under way much earlier this year, so that it could have helped guide the consideration of Bill C-7. Again, COVID and prorogation intervened.

When it comes to medical assistance in dying, Parliament had two tasks before us. One was the need to amend the MAID legislation to conform with the charter as required by the Superior Court of Québec ruling. This ruling found the current law too restrictive, and that was in fact the very reason New Democrats voted against Bill C-14 at the original vote.

Making MAID laws conform to this ruling is, of course, the central purpose of Bill C-7. However, as I said, the second task with regard to medical assistance in dying was to conduct that statutory review of the broader issues, having had four years of experience with it.

As a result of growing increasingly concerned while waiting for the government to get the review under way, on October 8, I introduced Motion No. 51. My motion called for the creation of a special committee of the House of Commons to conduct this review. Special committees have some advantages when it comes to reviews of this kind. They are granted comparatively unlimited resources by the House and are not bound by the four hour per week schedule specified for standing committees, like the justice committee.

They are mandated to work on a single task, so they are not subject to the kinds of delays that can occur in standing committees, like the justice committee, where dealing with legislation must always, necessarily, take precedence over studies. Of course, special committees can make recommendations for actions needed beyond the confines of Bill C-7 or beyond the narrow court decisions.

Indeed, it was a special committee that made the original recommendations to the House that became Bill C-14. To be clear, this broader legislative review of issues arising out of medical assistance in dying was mandated in the original legislation and was supposed to start last June at the latest. It should have taken place, and would have taken place, whether or not there was a court decision in Quebec.

Bill C-14 required that the review specifically look at the question of advance requests or advance directives, requests from mature minors and requests where mental illness is the sole underlying condition. However, New Democrats have argued from the beginning that the mandate of that statutory review was missing a key element. That is why my motion called for a special committee with an expanded mandate to include the question of whether the safeguards in our medical assistance in dying legislation are adequate to protect the most vulnerable among us.

I am happy to say that I believe all parties now seem to agree that the mandate should be expanded to include this question. I am still not sure why the government is so adverse to a special committee, but I think it will find that members of the justice committee would reluctantly agree to the justice committee undertaking this review, as long as it had the expanded mandate. Though, of course, I will still worry that time, resources and the agenda of the standing committee may be too limited to do justice to the task.

Previously I have spoken about the issues of medical assistance in dying on very personal and very practical terms. I have spoken about my mother's fears of being trapped in a hospital bed while suffering and no longer knowing her family. I have spoken of a friend who chose medical assistance in dying much earlier than she might otherwise have done out of fear of losing her capacity to give final consent because of her growing brain tumour.

Now, in addition to these personal experiences, as a member of the justice committee I have had the privilege of talking to dozens of Canadians over Zoom, of hearing dozens of witnesses in committee and of reading even more briefs on medical assistance in dying.

I have been particularly and equally touched by the stories of families whose loved ones chose medical assistance in dying over prolonged suffering and the stories from those medical practitioners who provide that medical assistance in dying. My conversations with these families and with these doctors helped me understand how medical assistance in dying operates in real life. These conversations have made it clear to me that the current legislation has some unintended and cruel consequences. This was evident even before the Quebec court ruling.

Those who listened carefully to the terminally ill, their families and the practitioners providing medical assistance knew well that our current law often inflicts and prolongs unnecessary suffering. Bill C-7 addresses three of those cases of unnecessary and prolonged suffering. While it was not strictly required to do so by the Truchon decision, I rightly think the bill does take on that task of reducing suffering.

Most important to me, Bill C-7 will end the spectre of patients like Audrey Parker of Nova Scotia, who felt she had to leave early and choose an earlier date for receiving medical assistance in dying because of her fear of losing the competence required to give consent at the moment the assistance is rendered. Audrey Parker felt she had no choice but to miss one last Christmas with her family. I think we all owe her thanks for making her personal struggle public so that others would not have to face the same awful choice.

Bill C-7 will fix this by waiving the requirement for final consent for those already assessed and approved for medical assistance in dying. This waiver of final consent takes away that need for any person, and let me stress this again, who has already decided to request medical assistance in dying and has already been assessed and approved for that assistance. It will prevent them from having to go early in order to avoid the loss of competence that would prevent them from receiving the end to their suffering and the end of to their family's suffering that they desire.

Whether one supports waiving the requirement of consent at the moment assisted dying is provided or does not support that, Bill C-7 does not open the door wide to advance consent or advance directive. It is simply providing that waiver of final consent for those already assessed and approved. The topic of advance requests remains part of the mandate of the special committee I would like to see doing the statutory review.

This is a question of great concern to many of my constituents. In fact, it is the single thing I have heard the most about from my constituents. They are concerned about maintaining their autonomy and decision-making over how their end of life takes place. They want to make sure that their wishes are respected. I have to say that my discussions with practitioners providing medical assistance in dying have persuaded me that this question is not so simple as it appears on first look. As I have said, this will remain an important question for a statutory review to address, but it is not part of Bill C-7.

A second cause of unnecessary suffering that Bill C-7 will also eliminate is the mandatory 10-day waiting or, as it is sometimes called, reflection period. The evidence provided in the report of the Association of Medical Assistance in Dying Assessors and Providers shows that nearly half the patients receiving medical assistance in dying chose to do so on or about the 11th day. What does that tell us? It tells us that they their suffering was prolonged simply to meet that statutory waiting period of 10 days.

I know concerns have been raised by members of Parliament about people changing their minds, but the statistics on people changing their minds about medical assistance in dying show that people do that during the assessment period, before they are actually approved. What the waiting period does is it makes patients hold out for days longer on what has already been assessed as intolerable suffering just to meet the statutory requirements. All patients are made to spend this time suffering and few if any are actually reflecting on the situation, because at this point to relieve the pain they are heavily sedated. If we truly respect the agency of patients who are terminal and suffering, then we ought not to impose a cruel waiting period.

Let me say as an aside how disappointed I have been to hear some members of Parliament alleging that Bill C-7 somehow creates the possibility of what they call “same-day dying”. It does nothing of the kind.

That would only be possible if the medical professionals involved skipped their duties and their professional responsibilities as prescribed in law and in their own professional codes of conduct. That is what it would take to produce such a result. Making this false allegation is insulting to the patients and the medical practitioners who provide this service. It demonstrates how little those who use that term know about the actual process of medical assistance in dying.

Another misleading “fact” that has often been cited in this debate occurs when members ask how can anyone support Bill C-7 when “doctors oppose it”. What those members are referring to is a petition submitted to the justice committee, a petition signed by more than 700 physicians. What this selective siding ignores is that the Canadian Medical Association, which represents more than 70,000 doctors, has come out squarely in favour of Bill C-7. That is nearly 100 times as many doctors as those who signed the petition.

Let me point to another positive change in Bill C-7 that reduces suffering, which has been willfully misconstrued: the reduction of the requirement that two independent people witness the signature of the patient requesting medical assistance in dying.

This change was suggested by practitioners as a result of the experience they have already had will Bill C-14. Clinicians and families often found the process of identifying a second independent witness was difficult, especially in rural and remote areas, because of the requirement of independence. It often also raised privacy concerns, as it involved an extra person in this process.

We must remember that the purpose of witnesses is only to verify the identity of the person making the request. Two independent medical assessors have already been involved each and every step of the way throughout the process. They have already had to certify the patient's eligibility for MAID. Practitioners have said this second witness provision is unduly restrictive and, again, often only ends up unnecessarily prolonging suffering.

At this point, I want to turn to some of the specific concerns about Bill C-7 that were raised at the justice committee.

The first concern is about the removal of the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable in order for someone to proceed with medical assistance in dying. Of course, this provision was removed by the Quebec court decision, not by Bill C-7.

Bill C-7 makes sure that medical assistance in dying legislation conforms with the decision of the court. It said limiting medical assistance in dying to cases where death was imminent was a violation of the Charter rights of patients whose death might not be on the immediate horizon but whose condition left them in intolerable suffering.

Bill C-7 creates a second track for those whose death is not imminent and specifies a second set of requirements and safeguards appropriate for the second track. The decision about whether the reasonable foreseeable provision should be removed is not made by Bill C-7. It is a decision made by the Quebec courts. I believe this is consistent with the Carter decision.

I want to take a moment to address those who say there is no need to meet the deadline opposed by the Quebec Superior Court. I remind them that without Bill C-7, those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable will come under the existing requirements immediately and will be without any of the conditions specified in Bill C-7 as appropriate for the second track. Regardless of whether people believe the safeguards are adequate, I ask them to understand that if we do not meet the deadline, there are no safeguards in the second track at all.

I believe most of us accept that there are good reasons to differentiate between the two tracks and to have additional requirements appropriate for those whose death is not imminent. Bill C-7 rightly sets out a more restrictive process and therefore requires more time for assessment and decision-making for the second track.

In addition, it does not set a reflection period of 90 days. It sets an assessment period of 90 days. That is an important distinction. It is not a maximum of 90 days; it is a minimum of 90 days. I do not think we should get confused on that point.

The second concern I want to address is a very important concern of the disability advocates: with the removal of the requirement that death be imminent, there will be pressure on the vulnerable in our society to choose medical assistance in dying.

Nothing in Bill C-7 changes the very high standards set in the original Bill C-14 for receiving medical assistance in dying. To receive this assistance, patients must have a condition that is incurable, must be in an advanced state of irreversible decline and must face intolerable suffering. This means Bill C-7 does not open the door wide, as some have suggested.

However, let me be clear here. I do not, in any way, wish to dismiss the concerns of the disability community over their vulnerability. That is why I have been calling for an expanded mandate of the statutory review so that we require it to consider the question of whether safeguards to protect the vulnerable in our medical assistance in dying legislation are adequate. Again, this may require us to look beyond the narrow confines of the medical assistance in dying legislation to other health legislation and other social support legislation.

That is why my colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, and I have just delivered today a joint letter to the Minister of Disability Inclusion calling for a new national income support program, set at $2,200 per month, for all persons with disabilities. This would be a single, national program to replace the patchwork of provincial programs that rarely come close to the amount that we have all now acknowledged with CERB as the minimum necessary. Providing such a benefit would be an important step toward a guaranteed basic income for all Canadians. More importantly, in the context of the bill, this would provide support at a level that would help avoid placing persons with disabilities in a position where dying looks like a better option than living without the supports they need.

Failure to provide the necessary resources to ensure that everyone can enjoy full and equal participation in life is a long-standing and ongoing black mark on the federal Parliament and all provincial parliaments. We have only to look at the failure to deliver additional assistance promptly to persons with disabilities during this pandemic to remind ourselves how often we forget about those living with disabilities.

As we consider how to recover from the pandemic, I hope we can adopt this proposed federal program that would provide all people with disabilities the equivalent of a living wage. This would be an important step toward relieving the fears about having to make a terrible choice eventually with medical assistance in dying.

Given the speeches from all parties stressing the need to take the situation of people with disabilities seriously, and in light of the Quebec Superior Court decision, I believe we should be able to marshal immediate support for this proposal in a minority Parliament. It would be an important step in mending the gaps in our social safety net that COVID has revealed. COVID has taught us that we can roll out income support programs quickly when we really want to do so.

As I near the end of my time, let me take a moment to address one last phenomena I observed in our committee discussions and one that I found very disturbing. It was the tendency of some members to mix together issues of suicide and medical assistance in dying. These are two completely different issues, distinct both medically and morally.

Medical assistance in dying does not provide a way to take one's own life. The testimony from physicians and families involved in medical assistance in dying told us very clearly that no one involved in medical assistance in dying wants anyone to die: not the families, not the physicians and certainly not the patients themselves. Medical assistance in dying is about those who are already dying and are far along that path and in intolerable suffering. It is about them being able to have control about how their life ends and when that suffering for them and their family will come to an end. It is not about choosing to die.

The New Democrats continue to support Bill C-7, as it contains significant measures that will help bring an end to unnecessary suffering and provide the necessary safeguards in the second track for those whose deaths is not reasonably foreseeable. It will do so in time to meet the deadline hopefully imposed in the Truchon decision.

We will continue to demand that we get started on the statutory review, which should already have begun. Proceeding with Bill C-7 without proceeding with the review is only getting half the job done on medical assistance in dying. At the same time, it potentially undermines public support for medical assistance in dying, which so far has only continued to grow.

In conclusion, I want to say again that I believe as a society we must do a better job of providing for the most vulnerable among us and those who are differently abled. In the case of the tragic deficiencies in end-of-life care and in the lived experiences of people with disabilities, COVID has taught us how much further we have to go toward a fully compassionate and fully equal society. I urge all parliamentarians not to ignore those lessons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member has any concerns about the fact that the CMA never consulted with its members about Bill C-7. Is it not disingenuous to suggest they all agree when they were never consulted? It sounds like fake news to me.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the questions that I am always ashamed gets asked in Parliament. I am not in the business of undermining professional organizations in how they represent their members, nor am I in the business of spreading fake news. However, given some of the comments from the member in this debate, I can see why fake news is on her mind.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

I understand this is a challenging and passionate issue, but the member's insult to my female colleague went way over the line for any kind of parliamentary discourse and he should be required to apologize for it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member, but I did not hear anything unparliamentary in the hon. member's response, so I do not think he was crossing a line.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I know he worked with my colleague from Montcalm on this issue.

For the past few weeks, representatives from a major women's rights organization, AFEAS, has been consulting with me on Bill C-7, since I am the critic for the status of women. They are worried. They are asking me where the process is at and telling me they would be willing to give evidence. After yesterday's vote on Bill C-7, I spoke with Government of Quebec officials who are following this closely and waiting to see what will happen with the infamous December 18 deadline.

This morning Le Devoir is reporting that the leader of the Conservative Party is not at all concerned about that December 18 deadline, nor is he concerned about the effects this legal vacuum could have in Quebec.

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on the effects this legal vacuum will have on the too many people who will continue to suffer if no agreement is reached by December 18.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concern. I have not actually seen the comments by the leader of the Conservatives, but I have heard it from other Conservatives. They imply that we do not need to take into account the considerations of people facing these issues in Quebec by meeting the deadline from the court.

Why are we at this late date to meet the deadline? That lies squarely at the feet of the Liberal government. However, I believe it is important that we provide approval of Bill C-7 in time to meet the deadline imposed by the court so that we do not leave people in Quebec without necessary protections.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always learn so much from my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. I appreciate his very thoughtful speech today. The coverage on it was remarkable.

I want to ask about the idea of providing dignity, whether it is dignity in the choices patients are making, the dignity of the health community or the dignity of people living with disabilities. A letter was sent to the Minister of Health asking to provide additional dignities, and I think the federal government can provide more supports.

The $2,200 is absolutely a start for a guaranteed basic income, but what more can be done?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her kind words disguised as a question.

The proposal we made to the government for a federal income support program at the national level would free up lots of money in the provinces. It is my hope that provinces would then use the money they had been providing for income support to provide additional methods of assistance to people, whether it is modifying homes so they can stay in their own homes or care assistance. Whatever those people with disabilities need to reach their full potential in life would be more available if the provinces could shift that money to provide supports.

It is really important that Parliament seriously consider taking away the fears that many in the disability community have, as the failure to provide them supports makes them make uncomfortable and awful choices down the line.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I read a report this morning from the Canadian Mental Health Association in collaboration with the University of British Columbia. It has said that during this time of COVID, four times as many Canadians are having suicidal thoughts. There are some very serious mental health issues right now that are leading to people considering suicide and mostly likely committing suicide. I know some are requesting MAID.

My assistant told me about her friend's 100-year-old grandmother, a very vibrant, social person who liked to get together with people, and in good health for 100 years old. However, because of the safety precautions, the necessary safety precautions, she was isolated, became more and more depressed and she ought MAID and was approved for it even though she was healthy.

I know the legislation is meant to protect people and not meant for people with mental health challenges or depression, but in this situation, it was approved. The concern is that mental health, mental anguish and depression will lead to MAID.

The member talked about it being for terminal illnesses—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many things I would like to address in that question. First, however, I want to stress again that medical assistance in dying has nothing to do with suicide. These are two completely different issues. I do respect the challenges that COVID has brought with respect to mental health across the country. That is a separate issue for us to address.

In the example he gave, he is doing something that has been done over and over again, and that is to repeat second-hand anecdotal information, which I have no way of verifying, nor does he. However, on the face of what he said, this person does not and could not qualify for medical assistance in dying. Mental illness, as the sole underlying condition, is not allowed as a condition for medical assistance in dying. If a practitioner had provided it solely on that basis, that person would be in violation of the law and his or her professional ethics.

In those cases, we have seen a report on medical assistance in dying and the number of complaints that have been filed on professional ethics or criminally for people providing medical assistance in dying to those who are not eligible is zero.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the member has done an excellent job at taking down many of the points that have been raised in opposition to this bill.

It was disappointing to hear Trump-like language in an attempt to undermine the Canadian Medical Association. In the entire opposition, there seems to be a lack of trust for medical professionals, that they cannot regulate themselves and they cannot provide the necessary oversight even though they do so for medical procedures all the time. I hope the member could comment on that.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question gives me a chance to thank four practitioners, and I will not name them for reasons of privacy, who provide medical assistance in dying. They shared a lot of their personal time with me to talk about what it meant to them as physicians to provide this service. They feel that medical assistance in dying is a way of fulfilling the highest ideals in their medical oath, that they are assisting people in avoiding unnecessary suffering and they are assisting families in that task.

Frankly, they have been appalled by some of the wild charges that have been alleged about what they are doing in their professional task in helping people with the end-of-life issues they face.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I share some geography, my riding being Saanich—Gulf Islands and his being Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. Anyone observing will know that our ridings are near each other.

I could not be prouder to have someone from Vancouver Island so strongly explain and so clearly set out the difference between what is in the legislation and some of the quite unfortunate, even deliberate, fearmongering statements that we have heard in the House. I regret very much that Canadians could imagine for one moment there was such a thing as same-day death approval in this act.

On behalf of the Green Party, I think I can take the leap to say that we totally support and are very pleased with the initiative of the hon. member and the member for Elmwood—Transcona to ensure disability payments, essentially a first step toward guaranteed livable income.

Could the member quickly explain again the safeguards that would prevent some of the more extreme examples that have been put forward in the House?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress this again. Bill C-7 would not change the basic requirements for receiving medical assistance in dying. People must have an incurable medical condition and be in an advanced state of irreversible decline and intolerable suffering. Two independent medical assessors are required to certify that the patients meet those requirements. If and only if those requirements are met, then they proceed to a medical assistance in dying practitioner, doctor or nurse practitioner, who can then render that assistance to people in what are sometimes very difficult moments at end of life.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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.

Climate Emergency Action Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

moved that Bill C-232, An Act respecting a Climate Emergency Action Framework, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share how honoured I am to be here today to share my first private member's bill as a member of Parliament. It is a very exciting day, for sure.

Close to 50 years ago, in 1972, the first international meeting on the environment took place where member states adopted the Stockholm declaration, which affirmed our responsibility to protect the environment for future generations. It is 2020. We have failed. We have failed in upholding this commitment and we now find ourselves in a climate crisis combined with a human rights crisis in our failure to recognize a clean, healthy and safe environment as a human right, something that has been recognized by 156 out of 193 member states.

Canada is far behind in the world in taking bold actions against the climate emergency. This climate emergency is threatening everything we know and value. Wildfires, flooding and extreme weather are worsening. The futures of our children's and grandchildren's lives are on the line. All life is now on the line and everything depends now on the actions we take.

The Canadian Paediatric Society indicates that children are among the most vulnerable to the health impacts of the climate crisis. Young people also report frequent experiences with anxiety related to their fears around the climate emergency. The reality is that this anxiety is based in fact. We are running out of time to turn things around.

Canada has not met a single climate target it has set. Young people, indigenous peoples and civil society groups want action and accountability from our government. The impacts of the climate crisis are already being felt in Canada, particularly in the Arctic and along the coasts, disproportionately impacting indigenous nations, rural communities and communities composed of people from marginalized and racialized groups.

The climate emergency has significantly impacted and destroyed the traditional territories of indigenous people, in turn, impacting livelihoods. This was noted by the current UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, as released in a report outlining how the lack of legal right to a healthy environment had a direct impact on indigenous peoples and racialized communities in Canada.

We are witnessing around the country that individuals, indigenous nations and young people want real action to address the climate crisis. I know our party, the New Democratic Party, shares this concern. This cannot be achieved without the recognition and respect of the fundamental human rights of indigenous peoples as affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Canada's nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples must be respected. There is no reconciliation in the absence of justice and this bill would be a step toward climate justice and upholding human rights, particularly with indigenous people, something the current Prime Minister indicated was the “most important relationship”.

People are tired of words. We are faced with the biggest existential threat, and yet we have a government that continues to fail to act, and continues to willfully violate the human rights of indigenous peoples on its own watch. There is no reconciliation in the absence of justice, and that also includes climate justice.

Moreover, indigenous women are experiencing the most direct impacts of the climate emergency. Their interests must be specifically considered under article 22 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states:

Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities in the implementation of this Declaration.

It also states that:

States shall take measures, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, to ensure that indigenous women and children enjoy the full protection and guarantees against all forms of violence and discrimination.

It is important to note that the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls found that a direct correlation existed between an influx of transient workers, those who arrived mostly in isolated towns and cities from elsewhere to work in mines or industries like oil and gas, and hydro, and higher rates of sexual assault, harassment, STIs and human trafficking. A right to a healthy environment and human rights of women and girls is always interconnected. We are sisters, mothers, aunties and grandmothers. Our bodies and our lives are sacred, like our Mother Earth. The life she provides needs to be honoured, just like our women, girls, sisters, aunties and grandmothers who continue to face unimaginable violence for the purpose of economic gain. We are sacred beings.

In addition to women, girls and transgender people, indigenous peoples are among the most impacted by the climate emergency, which includes the disruption of traditional ways of life and food security, especially in the north, which is warming up at a much faster rate. This has given rise to higher costs for imported food alternatives, leaving individuals able to afford only unhealthy food options, which contributes to greater food insecurity and negative impacts on health. Indigenous people in Canada are among the lowest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the country, yet research indicates that they are the most impacted by the climate crisis.

Indigenous peoples have experienced the impacts of the climate crisis for generations and are most often the ones on the front lines fighting to protect our Mother Earth. I have joined them on those front lines. We must respect indigenous science and knowledge that provides a complex understanding about how to address the climate crisis, which is why it informs the development framework of Bill C-232.

Yesterday I was really happy to see the government introduce Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is why I am especially pleased to rise today to present my private member's Bill C-232, an act respecting a climate emergency action framework, the first test of the government's commitment to upholding the human rights articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Bill C-15 requires that all new legislation from this House be consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am very proud to say that Bill C-232 is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a bill that supports the development of a made-in-Canada, green, new deal that ensures that Canada takes all measures necessary to respect its commitments under the convention on climate change to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that it does so while fully complying with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We have international commitments, as well, to fight the climate emergency and uphold human rights, and this includes the UN Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I cannot say that too many times.

This bill upholds these international agreements and recognizes the right of all Canadians to a safe, clean, healthy environment as a human right. There is widespread consensus that human rights norms apply to environmental issues, including the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. In fact, more than 100 countries in the world have recognized this human right in their legislation or Constitution, and it is time for Canada to follow their lead.

The Parliament of Canada has recognized that we are in a climate emergency, so the fact that the Liberal government fails to appropriately react and continues to put forth plans that will not allow us to meet climate targets needs to end. Bill C-232 calls on the Government of Canada to take all measures necessary to mitigate the impacts of the climate emergency and provides a framework to achieve a made-in-Canada, green, new deal with accountability and transparency measures to hold the government to account.

This framework would save lives and mitigate the impacts of the climate emergency on public health, the natural environment and on the economy while upholding, lifting up human rights. If the government is serious about Bill C-15, and I do hope it is, supporting this bill would be an act of good faith and a first attempt by the government to demonstrate that it is serious in its commitment to adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It is time we begin divesting from fossil fuels and reinvesting in a green economy that brings workers along, increases employment in the green energy sector, and increases investment in green infrastructure and housing in respect of human rights. Bill C-232 provides the critical framework for this transformation to achieve the transformative climate action legislation.

We are running out of time. We must act now. Our ability to survive depends on what we do now.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the importance of climate action as an issue, indigenous people are far too often overlooked.

The best example I could give is often when I am knocking on doors in Winnipeg North, I will run into individuals who were evacuated because of Lake St. Martin flooding that had taken place back in 2011. For years, they have been away from their homes. It happened that an NDP government intentionally flooded areas, including the Lake St. Martin, which displaced indigenous people. It was very severe, and we are still paying the costs of that.

Could my colleague provide her thoughts in terms of how it is so important that the federal government work with provinces, and vice versa, so that we could deal with these two critically important issues?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague and the other colleagues with whom he works that human rights should never be a partisan issue. Human rights are human rights. I find it unfortunate, coming from a member whose province has the highest child apprehension rate in the country that he fails to even bring up in the House, which is another human rights violation, that he consistently makes basic human rights a partisan issue. Human rights should never be a partisan issue. I will always hold up human rights.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for opening up the debate here today. She is very passionate. I have sat at committee with her and have benefited from our discussions. I congratulate her on focusing on items that are very important to her and her constituents.

There are many pieces of legislation, such as Bill C-215, her own piece of legislation we are debating today, as well as Bill C-12, that all relate to climate accountability in some way, shape or form. How would the member say her legislation is superior to that of the Liberals, or that of the Bloc Québécois, which is Bill C-215?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my bill provides a consultation framework so that any climate emergency action framework would be developed in direct consultation with civil society and indigenous peoples. It would not be directed by the minister, but by people on the ground.

It also has very clear accountability measures that are consistent with what we heard with respect to Bill C-15 yesterday.

As well, it meets the new minimum human rights requirements outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that any legislation has to be compliant with.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for introducing this bill and for her work on a climate emergency action framework.

I noticed that she has focused heavily on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is a good thing. The bill also mentions the Paris Agreement and meeting our 2030 targets under this international agreement. However, I do not see anything particularly binding in this bill. There are no measures or tools to reduce greenhouse gases. There is nothing requiring that the government implement a meaningful action plan to meet our targets.

Instead of focusing on consultation, does the member not think that legislation to develop a climate emergency action framework should be more binding?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my hon. colleague for all the work she has done with respect to her private member's bill. I have had the pleasure of speaking with her on the phone.

There are a couple of reasons why I did not put in specific targets. I left it open to be able to shift as science shifts, It is binding. Canada is obliged to adhere to the international agreements it has decided to participate in. It certainly made a commitment in Paris and will not meet the commitments and international legal obligations it has put forth. It has a legally binding context that includes international, domestic and indigenous laws.