Debates of Dec. 4th, 2020

Criminal Code

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

moved that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to the debate on Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to medical assistance in dying.

I want to start by reminding all members that this is important legislation. We as parliamentarians have a court-imposed deadline of December 18 to pass this legislation. This legislation would help prevent the suffering of Canadians. Even there were no court-imposed deadline, we would have a moral obligation to see it passed.

I am really disappointed, to be frank, to see my colleagues across the aisle delaying the bill, increasing the chances that the government misses the court-imposed deadline and prolongs the suffering of Canadians in denying them the autonomy to choose medical assistance in dying.

I am very disheartened to see members of the Conservative Party of Canada continue their delay tactics to slow this legislation. I saw it at the justice committee and we are seeing it again now. We know that the majority of Canadians believe that MAID is a basic human right. More than 300,000 people participated in consultations earlier this year.

The Quebec Superior Court's deadline is now two weeks away as of today. Conservatives are now trying to undermine the urgency of the situation. They are ignoring the very real consequences that their inaction could have on those who are suffering in this country. I think it is also important to remind members where the content of this legislation came from and the process the government went through in January in developing this legislation.

Bill C-7 was informed by the Truchon decision itself, Canadian and international reports, the experience of existing international regimes, and the government's consultations on MAID held in January and February of this year.

I had the opportunity to participate in some of these round tables that were hosted across the country including in my home of Toronto, where I am speaking from, and in Winnipeg. In these consultations, our team spoke with 125 stakeholders including regulatory bodies, legal experts, doctors, nurse practitioners, representatives of the disability community, and indigenous persons and their representatives. They shared their experiences and insights into MAID and its implementation in Canada over the last four years.

In order to get a broader public perspective, the government also hosted an online public survey. It received over 300,000 responses from people across the country. The summary of the consultations was released in March as a “what we heard” report. Our government did its homework in the creation of this legislation.

I would like to take the time to explain to all hon. colleagues what Bill C-7 proposes to change in our MAID regime so that we all start from the same common understanding of the legislation before us.

There are four main aspects to the bill. The first aspect concerns eligibility criteria and these changes are fairly straightforward. The eligibility criterion requiring a reasonably foreseeable natural death would be repealed. As I have already described, this change would in effect adopt the outcome of the Truchon decision for the whole of Canada.

This eligibility criterion makes Canada's current end-of-life regime available only when a practitioner can determine with confidence that a temporal connection to death exists, with some flexibility. In Truchon, the Quebec Superior Court told us that this criterion violated the charter rights of people whose death was not reasonably foreseeable, people like Mr. Truchon and Ms. Gladu.

To avoid prolonging the suffering of the applicants and other Canadians in similar situations, our government decided to accept the decision and amend the act for all of Canada.

The legislation would continue to require a voluntary request and informed consent from a person with decision-making capacity. These cornerstones of autonomy would ensure that MAID could be safely provided to Canadians who deem it to be the solution to their suffering, while guarding against persons being pressured into seeking MAID. We trust that individuals know best for themselves when they can no longer endure suffering, regardless of whether their natural death is reasonably foreseeable. We are committed to respecting this very personal choice of Canadians.

The second aspect of the bill is the safeguards. The bill would use the criterion of reasonably foreseeable natural death to create a two-track system. Those whose death is reasonably foreseeable would continue to benefit from the current safeguards with two changes. First, the 10-day reflection period would be repealed and a person would only need one independent witness to sign a MAID request instead of two. That independent witness would be someone who is paid to provide health and personal care services to the person requesting MAID. These changes are intended to alleviate barriers to access and to reduce suffering.

We heard from medical practitioners that these did not serve as safeguards, but only unnecessarily prolonged suffering for individuals who had made up their mind. It also created issues of accessing MAID in rural and remote areas.

Those people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable would benefit from an enhanced set of safeguards. In addition to those safeguards required where death is reasonably foreseeable, practitioners would have to assess a person's MAID request over a minimum assessment period of 90 days. If neither of those two MAID assessors has expertise in the condition that is causing the person's suffering, they would have to consult a practitioner who does. That is pursuant to the amendment that was helpfully proposed by the NDP member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke at committee. The person requesting MAID must be informed of the means available to relieve their suffering, including mental health and disability support services, and be offered consultations with professionals who provide those services. Both practitioners have to discuss those means of relieving suffering with the person and be of the view that the person has seriously considered those means.

In terms of the broad approach to the bill, the third aspect of Bill C-7 is that of the limited change around advance consent. This one is unrelated to changes in eligibility criteria, but instead seeks to address an unfair situation that arises when a person is approved for MAID but loses decision-making capacity and cannot consent to the MAID procedure immediately before it would be provided, despite the request having been approved and the procedure already planned. Members probably know the reason for this amendment best through the story of Audrey Parker, the Canadian woman whose case we heard so much about a bit more than a year ago who had to schedule her MAID procedure earlier than she would have wanted, out of fear of losing decision-making capacity before her preferred date to receive MAID.

In my view, Bill C-7 takes the right approach by proposing to allow the waiver of final consent only in cases where the person's death is reasonably foreseeable and only when he or she has already been found eligible for medical assistance in dying and is waiting for the procedure to take place, but risks losing the capacity to provide final consent.

According to practitioners and people like Audrey Parker, this is exactly the kind of situation that forces people to make a cruel choice if they risk losing their capacity to give consent before receiving medical assistance in dying. That is the one, very specific scenario this bill proposes to address, since it presents the least amount of uncertainty in terms of patients' autonomous choices and the least ethical and practical complexity.

I know this is an important issue for Canadians, and I am committed to working with all parliamentarians to begin the parliamentary review of the medical assistance in dying regime as soon as possible after Bill C-7 has made its way through the parliamentary process. I have no doubt that the issue of advance requests will be an important part of that review.

The fourth and final category of amendments that the bill proposes targets the monitoring regime. The changes would allow the collection of information in a wider range of circumstances, including information about preliminary assessments that might be undertaken before a request is put in writing. Consultations will take place before these regulations are amended. An amendment at committee based on an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith of the Green Party would require that the Minister of Health consult with the minister responsible for the status of persons with disabilities in carrying out their reporting obligations; again, another helpful amendment that was proposed at the committee stage.

Medical assistance in dying has always been a very difficult issue that generates a variety of opinions on all sides of the issue. It strikes deeply to all Canadians' personal morals and sensibilities. We understand this. As such, it requires different interests to be considered. I firmly believe that Bill C-7 does exactly that. The law will continue to require informed consent and a voluntary request made by a person with decision-making capacity, while also creating a more robust set of safeguards where the person's natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. These safeguards require significant attention to be paid to all of the alternatives that might help alleviate suffering on the part of a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. We believe such a regime can work safely by guarding against overt and subtle pressures to seek MAID, while providing autonomy to a greater number of Canadians to make this important choice for themselves.

I would like to return for a moment to the topic of safeguards, specifically when it comes to those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It is very important to remind members of this House what these safeguards are and why we believe that they are adequate.

This legislation proposes a distinct set of procedural safeguards that are tailored to the risks associated with assistance in dying for persons whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. Ending the lives of those whose suffering is based on their experience of their quality of life is different from offering a peaceful death when the dying process would otherwise be painful or prolonged, or would erode a person's sense of their own dignity. Bill C-7 therefore proposes a more robust set of safeguards where natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. Safeguards for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable would be built around the existing safeguards, but contain enhancements over the previous Bill C-14, which was passed in the 42nd Parliament. Importantly, the medical assessments of a person's eligibility must span at least 90 days.

I mentioned this earlier, but I want to emphasize, as there appeared to be some confusion around this at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and elsewhere. This period of 90 days is not a waiting period or a reflection period. This is not a requirement that the person wait 90 days after they are approved. Rather, it is a stipulation that practitioners must, over at least a period of three full months, fully explore the person's medical condition and the nature and causes of their suffering, and work with them to identify reasonable treatment or other support options they must discuss with the person. The person seeking MAID is not required to undergo any treatments. It would be an intrusion into the individual's autonomy to force them into any sort of treatment, but as we embark on this new expansion of the MAID regime, we believe we can collectively move forward safely, if we can be satisfied that available options have been brought to the person's attention and given serious consideration.

All of these safeguards reflect the irreversible nature of ending someone's life and the very serious nature of medical assistance in dying, which needs to continue to be strictly regulated, especially given the broadening of the regime. As stated by the Canadian Medical Association, which welcomed our government's staged approach, the proposed MAID amendments are “a prudent step forward”. Bill C-7 proposes to further support individual autonomy while also protecting vulnerable persons and ensuring that careful consideration will be given to those challenging issues. For these reasons, among others, I strongly encourage members of this House to support this legislation and to support its passage through this House and Parliament to meet the court deadline of December 18.

I also want to remind members of the upcoming parliamentary review. Through the course of the consultations, and then through the committee process, we did hear of a number of issues that need to be reviewed and addressed, but need more thorough study than could be done in the time required to meet the court-imposed deadline. Parliament will have ample time to review all of these issues, and I think it is important that we do so, but we need to get this legislation passed as well.

Bill C-14, from the previous Parliament, called for Parliament to conduct a review and specifically mentions the state of palliative care. We expect this review will also include important issues such as mature minors, mental illness as the sole underlying condition and advance requests. By no means would I expect this to be a closed list, either. This is a broad issue and we would hope to hear from many Canadians on a wide variety of subjects relating to MAID. Having heard from many witnesses and spoken to many Canadians on Bill C-7, I know there are diverse views on this issue. They are all difficult issues, and I look forward to the parliamentary review and hearing from many more Canadians on the subject and seeing what the review has to say.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am very disappointed and concerned by my colleagues across the way and their lack of respect for the court deadline imposed on us by the Superior Court of Quebec to pass this legislation. I believe we have an obligation as parliamentarians to do everything we can to try to meet the deadline of the court. Canadians want this legislation. Quebeckers want this legislation. I am really unclear on why my colleagues across the way are showing disrespect for the will not only of the court, but of all Canadians. They have been slowing and delaying debate unnecessarily, and I am very concerned by what this says about how much they value the rule of law and the will of Canadians.

I want to thank my colleagues who serve with me on the justice committee for their work on helping us in a smooth and efficient committee process on this legislation. I look forward to this House giving the same consideration to the legislation. Again, I want to emphasize to my colleagues the importance of moving quickly. I look forward to continuing the debate on Bill C-7, but also to its ultimate passage in time for Parliament to meet the court-imposed obligation.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out that not one of the amendments that were proposed by our Conservative party at committee was adopted. We proposed those amendments in good faith, and we proposed them with the support of the persons with disabilities community. Krista Carr, executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada, a group that represents persons with disabilities, said that Bill C-7 represents the “worst nightmare” for persons with disabilities.

I want to ask my hon. friend why they did not listen to the persons with disabilities community and why he is talking about delays, when it was his government that prorogued the House and caused Bill C-7 to have to have a complete restart.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his contributions in committee, and I will answer his questions.

The Conservative Party amendments that were proposed undercut the heart of what the bill is about, which is ensuring that there is a compassionate response to medical assistance in dying and that a person's autonomy is protected.

With respect to persons with disabilities, we had extensive consultations with persons with disabilities. We heard that there is heterogeneity among that community. We heard from Senator Petitclerc, who indicated the exact same thing. She and former minister Steven Fletcher of the Conservative Party, both themselves persons with disabilities, indicated that it is not for certain groups to speak on behalf of the entirety of persons with disabilities.

Madame Gladu and Monsieur Truchon were themselves persons with disabilities. The court found, in the Truchon case, that in order to protect their autonomy and their competence, the bill must be revised, which is why it is being revised to ensure that the competence of all people, including persons with disabilities, is respected.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit sad to hear this morning's debate. On one hand, some people are saying that the opposition parties are holding up the process, and there is in fact one opposition party that is purposely delaying it, which I think is shameful. On the other hand, other members are saying that the Liberals prorogued Parliament for five weeks for no reason other than to cover up a scandal. Both sides are right. I am letting them know that this morning.

I think that citizens expect more when we are debating legislation as important and fundamental as this, the law on medical assistance in dying. People who are suffering terribly have had to fight for many years in court. This bill seems reasonable to me, and I think it should be passed quickly.

Could my Liberal Party colleague reassure the Conservative members about the safeguards included in the bill to ensure that we can trust the professionals who are on the ground and who are able to judge the situations? We need to trust our own people.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, and I am pleased that the Bloc Québécois is supporting this bill.

With regard to the judgment of professionals on the ground, whether it be doctors or nurses, we know that they treat people and assess their autonomy and their informed consent. Bill C-7 gives these professionals more leeway to exercise their judgment.

What I mean by that is that in cases where death is not reasonably foreseeable, there is a waiting period of at least 90 days during which all aspects of the person's situation must be assessed. There has to be an opportunity to treat the person. All tools and options must be provided. As a result—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Parkdale—High Park for his speech today and for his diligent work on Bill C-7.

I want to return to this question of timing that we have been kicking around in the questions here today. I have to say that COVID was partially responsible for the delay, but certainly the Liberal government's prorogation was a bigger cause for the delay in dealing with the bill.

I would ask the hon. member to return to the question he touched on a moment ago, which is this: What are the consequences for Quebec and for the rest of the country if we do not meet this deadline in Quebec, because Bill C-7 does provide some safeguards to implement the court decision?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question and, again, I thank the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for his contributions at committee and throughout this Parliament.

The consequences of not meeting the court-imposed deadline of December 18, in effect, would be that rather than a statute being the law of the land in Quebec, we would have the Truchon decision being the law of the land in Quebec, which means that there would be no safeguards whatsoever for those persons who are not at the end of life, whose death is not reasonably foreseeable, from accessing MAID.

If all parliamentarians agree, all 338 of us, that some safeguards are required, notwithstanding the disputes about safeguards, I would urge Canadians, as represented by these parliamentarians, to work expeditiously to ensure that safeguards are in place for persons who are not at the end of life but seek to avail themselves of medical assistance in dying.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Official Languages)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

When it comes to the concept of reasonably foreseeable death, how do we now reconcile the Truchon ruling with the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Carter?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the parliamentary secretary for his very good question.

What we know is that in Truchon, the judge assessed the criteria in Carter and applied them to the situation of these two people who were living with disabilities but whose death was not reasonably foreseeable.

According to the judge, denying access to medical assistance in dying to persons in that situation was unconstitutional in that it constituted a violation of the rights guaranteed under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That is what prompted us to introduce legislation that responds to what we have heard from more than 300,000 people.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has pointed out that there are different opinions among people with disabilities and that is true in every community, of course. We both know that, for instance, in the Muslim community there are some people who express views about issues that the vast majority of that community find offensive. I think, generally speaking, government should listen to the representative organs of those communities, not cherry-pick one or two individuals it finds who may have a point of view that is not in keeping what the majority is saying. When all of the representative organizations who represent people with disabilities are raising big concerns, I think the government should take that seriously.

Just on the issue of timing, can the member acknowledge the fact that the Conservatives wanted the House to be able to sit in May and June. In addition to the issue of prorogation, the Liberal government chose not to allow the House to sit and consider legislation in May and June when it could have.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the member in a twofold manner.

The first point is that I think it is erroneous and misconstruing the positions at stake that we somehow, on this side of the House, are cherry-picking perspectives on any aspect of this bill. The consultations that we heard were vast and extensive from 125 experts and 300,000 individual Canadians. That is the first point. With respect to the views articulated by persons with disabilities, I would reiterate that the litigation that has prompted this legislative response was brought by persons with disabilities. Clearly persons with disabilities are seeking the same level of competence and autonomy that is available to able-bodied Canadians.

On the last point with respect to the timing, I am referring to what has transpired over the last four to six weeks, in terms of the committee process and now the House parliamentary process. Members are entitled to voice their views. Members are entitled to voice the views of their constituents. That is what a democracy is about. However, prolonging the suffering of Canadians is not in any of our interests and that is exactly what will transpire if the December 18 deadline is missed.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the parliamentary secretary for his speech and complimenting him on the quality of his efforts and his French.

Now, just because his French is good, it does not mean I agree with what he is saying, especially on the decisions his government has made.

We all know that this is a very sensitive topic and that there is no room for partisanship. As members of the House, every one of us here has to work diligently on this.

However, since this issue is literally about life or death, would it not have been better to have the Supreme Court of Canada as the court to rule definitively on this issue, to avoid any legal misunderstanding that might come up with this legislation?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the aisle for his question and his work in this Parliament and the previous one.

This question has been raised a number of times. A government's job is to analyze a well-articulated, well-researched, thorough decision. It is not necessary to appeal a decision all the way to the end.

There are times when the government must take the lead, evaluate a decision and seize the opportunity to spare Canadians pointless suffering and pain by introducing a legislative response to a decision. This is one of those times. We think this is the best way to go.

As a government, we made this decision to avoid appealing the case to the Supreme Court, which could have taken another two, three or four years and prolonged people's suffering.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this time to speak on this incredibly important issue to all Canadians.

As I was leading into this speech, I reflected back on the debates on Bill C-14. On May 3, 2016, the House was debating the creation of an euthanasia and assisted suicide bill. At the time I spoke in the evening on May 3, I mentioned how this would probably be, in my career as a politician, a member of Parliament, having at that time served eight years and now in my 13th year, perhaps the most important speech that I would ever make.

When I look back on that speech today, I think I was wrong. I think perhaps this is the more important speech because at that time Parliament was faced with a court deadline as well to put into place legislation for euthanasia and assisted suicide. Like many countries around the world that have these bills, going back to the first legislation in the Netherlands in 2002 until today, I have seen the progression of what has happened in these countries as an example of what will happen on the slippery slope of this legislation.

I should say as well, as I did in 2016, I come at this with a very biased approach and that is because I am the father of a 34-year-old intellectually disabled son. My son was brain damaged at age two. He suffered irreversible damage that has caused him to lead a life with his parents as his caregivers his entire life. When the people and organizations that represent persons with disabilities speak, and they have spoken loudly, to the particular changes and amendments that the government is bringing forward in Bill C-7, they have said this is the worst possible scenario.

I interpret that from my lens as a parent in terms of protection for my son. Frankly, it causes me to reflect on what we are currently experiencing: the COVID-19 crisis. Just about every piece of communication that I receive, email, text, telephone call, whatever, usually starts with a sentence where that person says to me or I say to them, “I hope your family is safe”. Generally speaking, the salutation at the end of those communications is, “Stay safe”. I believe all parliamentarians have probably experienced the exact same thing.

One of the concerns of the disability community is this. What will happen to our children in their latter lives when we are no longer with them, when we can no longer care for and protect them? Therefore, the theme of my speech today is “Stay safe, my son”.

Let us look at the evolution of these laws across the world. I will read a few recent headlines that I found through my research coming into this today. “'What kind of society do you want to live in?': Inside the country where Down syndrome is disappearing”. This headline is from the BBC on October 14, “Netherlands backs euthanasia for terminally ill children under-12”.

Let me read a couple of excerpts from this article, which are fairly poignant considering today's discussion. The article begins, “The Dutch government has approved plans to allow euthanasia for terminally ill children aged between one and 12." Of the current law, it goes on to mention, “It is also legal for babies up to a year old [to be euthanized] with parental consent.

I could go on with more headlines, but I choose not to because I think members get the point. The point is this: Where do we stop? With Bill C-14 in its original form, the preamble said it all, which was, and I am sure the committee heard this, that there are many in society who say this bill does not go far enough and does not satisfy those who want wide open death-upon-request euthanasia laws. When we look at this, we must look at it from both sides, because both sides of this issue require our compassion.

I have spent time with three significant people in my life at the end of their lives. One is my mother, who was in extreme pain for a long period of time. I held held her hand upon her death. I also watched a very good friend deteriorate from age 39 to age 41 before his death. As well, lately, a very good friend, who is choosing to end her life early, and who I had quite a frank conversation with out of total respect. All of them had been, or are in, the final stages of a terminal illness.

Compassion must go to people who are in situations that are unbearable. Fortunately, there are other alternatives. I happen to live in Brantford, Ontario, and we have one of the finest palliative care units in all of the country. People come to study it and look at it. They come to see it as an alternative. If we were to focus on something going forward that a government could do, but that it would perhaps not see as a priority, it could be to give people the resources to make a choice.

Let me get back to this discussion of the most vulnerable. They are persons with disabilities, and to name a few, they are autistic children, autistic adults and persons with brain damage, like my son. These are not mental illnesses, by the way. Some of these are genetic, such as Down Syndrome. There are some who have met a person with Down Syndrome who just lights up their life because of their complete innocence and their complete love, not only for others, but also for their own lives. There are many others who the disability community speaks for.

Bill C-7 undermines their precarious position. It takes and diminishes the few protections that existed in Bill C-14, and of course, this is what is being chosen, as per the votes up to this point, on this issue by the majority of members of Parliament.

To my son, I say, “Stay safe.” To the constituents of Charlottetown, I say, “Stay safe.” To the constituents with disabilities in Scarborough—Agincourt, I say, “Stay safe.” To all Canadians, I say, “Stay safe.”

The trajectory of where we are heading, and it is in that preamble to the legislation, is what is happening around the world. It is happening in society. People in legislatures are making the decisions for the rest of the country as to what the future will look like.

This is a critical moment. It was a critical moment back in 2016. Again, we are faced with a critical moment. The priority has become a deadline set by a court, instead of the fullness of all voices being heard.

The parliamentary secretary can articulate the numbers. He can articulate the fact that there were so many submissions and individuals we were able to listen to. At this point in time, the people who represent the vast number of persons with disabilities and their families in this country are dead against this legislation. Let us be clear about that. Let us not try to sugar-coat this. This is where we are today.

What kind of society do we want? Where this leads to, frankly, is one of those headlines. As we take away the protections for individuals with disabilities, as this law does, we eventually lead society into the normal course of accepting that assisted suicide and euthanasia are natural things. We move toward being a society that starts to look at individuals as either being healthy in society's mind, and living fulfilling lives, or beings one of those who have been brought into this world, or has had something happen to them in this world, that puts them in this very precarious situation.

Is life easy for persons with disabilities and their caregivers? In most cases, it is not easy. We can attest to that. We have three healthy children, as well as our special needs son with disabilities. Part of the richness of life is the fact that the child who many would see as imperfect is the one who brings the most joy to life. They are the ones we must protect at all costs.

Why do we not spend the time to get this legislation right and make it airtight so their lives are never at risk? I do not believe this legislation does immediately put them at risk. Some would say this legislation is quite to the contrary, but looking to five, 10, or 20 years from now, when most of us here will no longer be in Parliament, it will be a new group of elected representatives looking to make changes down the road.

Is there anything in the international experience to tell us that this is not a continual, gradual and incremental deterioration of the protections for those who are the most vulnerable?

The other point that needs to be made is that persons with disabilities are a minority in our country. Over the 13 years I have been in Parliament, more time has been spent on legislation, members' statements, just name it, than communications from government about protecting minorities. This is a vulnerable, if not the most vulnerable, minority in society. It is definitely in the top grouping of the most vulnerable.

Disability knows no boundaries. We are involved with groups of people, and I represent the Six Nations of the Grand River, the largest first nation in Canada. We are helping aboriginal individuals from Six Nations who have children with disabilities. They feel very strongly about the fact that the few protections that exist need to not only be kept in place, but also enhanced and made airtight for their children.

In those debates in 2016, the member for Calgary Nose Hill said in her opening statement that this is about, “the sanctity of human life” and “defining the morality of our country.” I could not agree more wholeheartedly with those words.

I will finish my remarks by saying, “Stay safe, my son.”

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Official Languages)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our friend from Brantford—Brant for sharing his own experience.

I was one of the original members of the joint committee behind Bill C-14. Allow me to share a little background.

Bill C-14 was introduced in response to the unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada handed down in February 2014, when the Harper government was in power. The court gave the government 12 months to comply with the ruling. The Harper government, knowing that an election was coming in the spring of 2015, essentially did nothing. The Liberals won the 2015 election. We lost 10 precious months before cabinet was appointed as a result of the Conservative Party's inaction.

Politicians are often called upon to make decisions, and it is not always easy. The majority of members on our committee who opposed this bill said they were doing so to protect vulnerable people, which is something everyone wants to do.

Could my esteemed colleague tell us where in Bill C-14 or in Bill C-7, which we are debating today, it says that a minor with a head injury, cerebral palsy or Down's syndrome could request medical assistance in dying? I do not see that anywhere.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I reflect back on a few comments made previously in debate by the parliamentary secretary, and in the question and answer period, which were that this is not a partisan issue. However, the only two people I have heard criticize a particular political party in this debate are the two members from the Liberal government side.

The member said the protections for persons with disabilities are in this legislation. He is wrong. That is why the disability community has spoken so loudly and broadly across this country, yet the government is not listening.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Brantford—Brant for his speech today. He is a member for whom I have a great deal of respect.

One of the things that COVID and the debate on Bill C-7 have done is expose something that has been there for anyone to look at if they chose to. That is the way we treat people with disabilities. We have not organized our society in a way that allows people with disabilities to live to their fullest potential or to live in equality with the rest of Canadians.

Would the hon. member support a national program of income support for people with disabilities that would lift all people with disabilities out of poverty and take away those stark choices he has been talking about?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a great deal of respect for the member who is asking this question. It is a great question.

There are supports needed for all families and for support workers, as well as for individuals with disabilities who choose to live on their own. In many of the provinces, believe it or not, they are sufficient.

I totally agree with the member. We need to set, for society, a moral compass on this issue. The government cannot look at this Parliament as solving this problem. We must set a tone and a future that guarantees, air tight, that persons with disabilities will live fulfilling lives, and that we will treat them as they are: as one of the most vulnerable minorities in our society.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for illuminating, from the heart, what we have been talking about in this debate.

I know he mentioned that his riding has excellent palliative care, but the reality is that across Canada, 70% of people have no access to palliative care. The government unanimously supported my palliative care bill to put a framework in place to get consistent access. Now it has backed down on all its promises to put money behind it so that people would actually have a choice, as the Carter decision outlined.

Could the member describe how he sees the government's response on palliative care?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, first of all, for her work on this issue, and for her passion for those I know she has personally worked with as the member of Parliament for Sarnia—Lambton.

I wish I could bring all of Parliament to the palliative care facility in my community. It is, without question, one of the most brilliant and well-thought-out places in which a person can choose a path to the end of life with dignity, and can have family and the community participate. I have spent many hours at this facility as a member of Parliament, visiting members of my community who are in their last days. It is one of the most rewarding and wonderful experiences of life.

Death is part of life, and should be celebrated as someone comes toward the end. They may be in great pain—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Fredericton.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the member to continue his response here, if he wishes. I appreciate the personal contributions so much. It is so important for us to understand.

I was not here for the previous discussion around this bill, and here we are in a very difficult position again. I have studied it. I have consulted with my riding. I have consulted with many people who are accessing MAID, and with people in the disability community who have concerns.

I was very comfortable with where I landed in support of this bill. However, I come from a position of privilege. I want the member to be comfortable as a parent, and I want the member's son to be safe as well.

Is it the interpretation that the member is worried about: that people will see people with disabilities as experiencing suffering? The bill is focusing on someone who is in pain. I am just wondering, is the interpretation and the application of law for those in the disability community the concern? I just need to understand where the fears are really coming from.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that very personal question.

The fear comes from this. Parents and caregivers, and the community in general around persons with disabilities, know that there will come a time in their lives when that care may deteriorate, and society no longer values persons it interprets as being imperfect. If we look at the trajectory of euthanasia and assisted-suicide legislation around the world, that is indeed the direction it is going.

It is going in the direction of this. It may not be now, through this piece of legislation. Perhaps there may be good intent, and I hope there is, but eventually, we as legislators must decide there are lines we cannot cross. That is why I say, “Stay safe, my son,” because I will no longer be here to keep him safe, and that is the fear of most parents.