Debates of Dec. 8th, 2020

Criminal Code

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's thoughtful comments. I would have loved to hear what the Supreme Court would have said about the Truchon decision. That would have given me more confidence in that decision, but ultimately, removing the term “reasonably foreseeable” gives me some fear. I was very frank about that in my speech.

I wonder very much whether, in my lifetime, we are going to see this expanded to children who do not have reasonably foreseeable deaths, or to those suffering from mental illness. Concerning mental illness, I know the government has been very clear that this legislation excludes it, but at the rapid pace we are expanding it I am not convinced that we are not going to see this extend to mental illness within my lifetime. I find that to be the most terrifying aspect of this new legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the question from the parliamentary secretary about the difference between the assessment period and the reflection period. I know members of the government have said it could not happen on the same day because there is an assessment period before the reflection period. However, there is no timing set on the assessment period. There is no reason that the assessment period could not happen very quickly. We are still left with a situation in which all of this could happen all at once. There are no time parameters on the assessment period. The government could have, if it wanted to, proposed time parameters around the assessment period, which it did not do.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's question.

I would refer to the quotes that I included in my remarks from the more than 1,000 doctors who wrote in response to this issue and said that it was a real concern to them. I would agree.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could speak about the issue of contemporaneous consent and the fact that the legislation would not even require people to be asked on the day they are receiving MAID. We had a Conservative amendment that would have at least required people to be asked on the day. Is that not the minimum of what would be reasonable?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have concerns with not having to sign off right before. I recognize, and I have heard many stories of, why that was removed. One could give prior consent and then have MAID administered when one has essentially lost the ability to give consent. However, I have concerns on that. Again, this is one of those issues that, had we more time, had this Liberal government not prorogued Parliament, we could have studied it in further detail.

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

Madam Speaker, we are now at the third reading stage of C-7. This means all the amendments that will be considered by the House have now been considered, and we must now pronounce on the final version of the bill and its effects.

Before I speak about this bill in final form, I want to respond directly to what I see as the government's principal argument for this legislation and other similar legislation. It tells us this is all about choice: the choice of individuals to live as they choose and die as they choose. The idea is that moral judgments about good living and good dying ought to be made by the person doing the living and dying, as opposed to by someone else, because the individual is uniquely qualified to make judgments about their own happiness and someone outside their skin simply cannot make those judgments as well.

This is the one serious argument people use to advance this bill and others like it. We should of course appreciate the existence of other unserious arguments, such as the assertion that, “The courts told us to,” or, “This is what people we have consulted told us to do.”

A small part of this bill responds to a lower court decision, but most of it has been invented, out of thin air, by the government and whoever it consulted or did not consult. Over a thousand physicians have signed a letter opposing this bill, and every single disability rights organization that has spoken out about this bill has spoken in opposition to it. These are unserious arguments stemming from unserious readings of court decisions and unserious consultation.

The serious argument made in support of this bill, as I have stated, is that people ought to have the choice to make decisions about their living and dying because they know what will lead to their happiness better than anyone else. This is the argument, but we should also notice how those who use this argument ultimately choose to apply it selectively. Even while suggesting it is all about choice, they insist on changing the words we use to describe the choice in order to make us feel better about it.

The phrase “medical assistance in dying” was invented at the time Bill C-14 was proposed, and is not a phrase used in other countries to describe the phenomenon of doctors killing their patients. If this is really about choice, why do we have to invent new pseudo-terms to make ourselves feel better about that choice?

If I asked members point blank whether they think a person should be able to commit suicide, I am sure many would respond that this is not suicide. It is completely different, as it is medical assistance in dying. Formally, what is meant by medical assistance in dying is facilitated suicide, or killing in a medical context. We claim to be focused on choice, but we still are uncomfortable enough with the choice that we have to invent new words to describe it.

Some members do not like the use of the word “euthanasia” to describe the phenomenon of doctors and nurses killing their patients after being asked to do so. The Minister of Health told the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that phrases “referring to this bill as 'euthanasia' legislation, which I have heard in the House of Commons, are incredibly demeaning to the dignity of people”.

The health minister may be interested to know the word euthanasia actually comes from two Greek words: “eu”, meaning well, and “thanatos”, meaning death. The term euthanasia means “good death”, and is itself a sanitization of the concept of killing. If the term is misleading, it is not because it is too harsh but because it is too gentle. As we have heard, not all cases of assisted suicide can reasonably be called good deaths by any definition.

Notice that the word euthanasia is never used to describe the administration of the death penalty. The term was invented in order to sanitize the idea of the medicalized killing of a consenting person. It is instructive that a sanitized term for this practice, once people had a full social awareness of its meaning and reality, had to be replaced by a new sanitized term to further obscure the true nature of what is taking place.

No doubt, in 20 or 30 years, the term MAID will be thought gauche and replaced with another, more up-to-date sanitization of a term that no longer makes us feel better about something we naturally feel uncomfortable about. The point is that if this all about choice, and if we are comfortable with this choice, why are we not comfortable speaking plainly about sick people committing suicide and about doctors killing their patients when asked to do so? Would that not be a more plain and accurate description of the choice that many wish to defend?

If there is a practice or activity that people are uncomfortable seeing depicted or hearing described accurately, perhaps we should ask ourselves why we feel uncomfortable instead of demanding that the images and descriptions be put aside.

Members should observe as well that the idea of a choice to die, or a right to die, is being advocated for selectively. Some people have a right to die and some people do not, apparently, so we have to ask why this principle is being selectively applied.

Suppose that I, an able-bodied healthy white man, experienced some great personal tragedy such as the death of a child or the breakup of my marriage. It is possible that following such an event I might start to experience extreme existential pain and suicidal ideation. If I then went to a doctor to share the feelings I was experiencing, I would not be presented with MAID as a way out of the challenges I was facing. The way I look, my health status and other characteristics I have would signal to the doctor that my life was worth living. We know it to be true that when a young, able-bodied person chooses to die, those around them will say, “What a tragedy. He had so much to live for.”

The argument for a choice to die does not apply to those who society believes should not choose to die, even if such people are sincere in their expression of pain, in their sense that their pain is irremediable and in their desire not to continue living, but what of a person who is older, who is disabled, who does not fit the stereotypical social mould of someone who has a lot to live for, presents themself to the health care system experiencing existential pain and suicidal ideation?

We know from testimony from the justice committee that people in this situation are offered and even pressured to opt for MAID. People who are elderly or living with disabilities are often offered and pushed to take MAID without asking for it. This is the testimony given over and over again at the justice committee and confirmed by the minister responsible for disability inclusion, who acknowledged how concerned she is about people with disabilities being regularly and proactively offered MAID that they do not want.

We see here an important and revealing contradiction in the application of the principle of choice. For some in society, death is seen as an unreasonable choice and is actively discouraged. For others, death is seen as a desirable choice and is actively encouraged. This is not just a debate about choice, therefore. Rather, it is a debate about how the architecture of choice is set up differently for different people, based on whether others assess their lives as being worth living.

This is what leaders in the disability community are deeply concerned about: how this legislation includes them and only them in the additional category of those for whom we think death is a reasonable course of action.

Suppose that of my four children one had a disability and suppose that I taught three of my children to always press on because life is beautiful, but I told the fourth child that they should consider death if they ever faced circumstance that they could not handle. Do colleagues think that situation would make my fourth child feel privileged by the special offer of choice or do colleagues think she would feel devalued by the fact that I thought death was uniquely an option for her, based on the presumption that her life was not worth living?

Choices do not exist in a social vacuum. When we speak about choice, we recognize that people are making choices between available options and the nature of those available options is constructed by the society in which they live.

I used to think that people were always better off with more options, that just like a menu at a restaurant, we are always better off with more options available to us: the longer the menu, the better. If I do not like any of the new options available, then no problem. I do not have to choose them, but I should not begrudge other people the opportunity to have more choices available to them, even if I do not like those choices. Nobody is made worse off by the lengthening of the menu. Then I realized that it was not that simple. If I am in a restaurant and the only options available are chicken or beef then, arguably, yes, I am better off with the addition of more items on the menu; a fish option, a vegetarian dish, etc., but there is also a case in which the existence of certain options on the menu fundamentally changes the nature of the experience.

Suppose that while travelling, I encounter a restaurant that offers a human flesh sandwich in addition to the usual fare. It is fairly safe that I would not stay and order in that restaurant even if I had no intention of ordering the human flesh sandwich. It is unlikely that any members of this House would feel comfortable eating in such a restaurant, even if all they planned to eat was the filet mignon. That example illustrates the way that the offer of an additional option can actually change one's entire experience of a place or environment. A person with a disability who is offered death has a very different experience of health care from a person who is consistently offered life-affirming care.

The fact that people are offered or encouraged toward certain choices, and that some people are offered those choices and others are not, changes the entire experience of health care for many people. Part of the response to this brave new world of so-called medical assistance in dying is that people are seeking safe spaces where they can receive care that is life-affirming. There are still many people in this country who have about as much interest in receiving care in an environment where death is being offered as they do in eating at a restaurant where cannibalism is offered. Such people should be free to receive care in a hospice where life is the only choice and where they feel safe from the possibility of pressure of a momentary weakness or from the sense that they are an unnecessary burden. Some are still looking for care that is animated by the conviction that all lives are always worth living, but perversely, those who claim to champion choice are actually attacking these safe spaces. With the absence of conscience protection in this or any other legislation like it, doctors are being forced out of their profession and life-affirming hospice care is being shut down.

We wonder why we have a crisis in long-term care in this country. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that so many of the people in organizations that have historically operated in this space are being pushed out because of a lack of conscience protection. Protecting the conscience rights of physicians and institutions is not just about the rights of providers. It is about the right, indeed the choice, of patients to receive care in a certain kind of environment if that is their desire.

I know from the many conversations that I have had with constituents, including those who are very supportive of the expansion of MAID, that the present realities of the social architecture of choice are top of mind for them during their advocacy. In other words, they want more euthanasia because they find the alternative intolerable. An absence of good care, an absence of effective pain management, an absence of support to live in a way that accords with their sense of dignity and a sense of resignation about these realities leaves them to want to be able to end it all, rather than endure under undesirable conditions, but those conditions could themselves be changed. The expansion of euthanasia, along with continuing pressure on all health care institutions to offer it, will further erode the life-affirming nature of care that people receive.

I remember once having a long conversation with a constituent who explained to me her reasons for advocating for expanded euthanasia. She emphasized the classic arguments about choice and control, and then shared with me a story of being in a care situation and struggling to have a bowel movement unaided. She went to the nursing station for help, and unfortunately was met with a gruff and unempathetic response. Her memory of the sense of indignity she felt, struggling for a long time on her own, and then seeking the help of a person who seemed uncaring and disgusted, was clearly a part of her thought process about the circumstances under which she would want to die.

While I can identify with her feelings in the moment, I think the solution is to give people the choice of compassionate care. It is a tragedy that people are considering death because of moments of perceived indignity that can be quite directly resolved.

Many older people who are considering death say that they do not want to be a burden on others. This is expressed as a matter of choice, but it is also revealing about the architecture of choice. It is generally unheard of for children to insist on paying rent to their parents or living independently because they do not want to be a burden. Certainly, I have never heard such sentiments from my children.

Why are elderly people made to feel like they might be a burden, while children are not? Again, this is an issue of social context. If children were constantly told from a young age that they were a great burden to their parents, that they were costing them money that could be spent on other things, and that they were interrupting their social lives, then children would likely start to worry about being a burden.

Conversely, if seniors and people with disabilities were constantly affirmed for their value and their ability to contribute to society, constantly told that they hold the key to our future rather than constantly being told about the burden they impose, then of course they would be more likely to choose life instead of death.

This is not just a question of choice. It is a question of the social architecture of choice that leads people to make different choices in different kinds of situations based on the limited options in front of them and based on the way that different options impact each other.

To underline this with one further point, it should not escape the notice of members that the government's Bill C-6, the proposed ban on conversion therapy, is built on the premise that people cannot consent to something that is contrary to their human dignity. Although I have concerns about the text of Bill C-6 as written, I agree with the principle that conversion therapy is wrong and should not be allowed.

In light of both Bill C-6 and Bill C-7, it remains unclear to me what the government's view is on the ability of a person to consent to harm. Is it the view of the government that people should be able to voluntarily consent to things that harm them? Looking at these bills together, we might conclude the government finds it okay for people to consent to death but not okay for people to consent to certain things that are deemed worse than death. However, this subjective categorization of certain harms as being worse than others clearly may contradict an individual's own subjective sense of what things are more harmful than others.

It is time for us, as parliamentarians, to talk about the choices that elderly people and people living with disabilities have in front of them, and to give them options besides death, to move from a narrow focus on questions of choice to a discussion of the architecture of choice that puts people in impossible and painful situations. A good society is not just one that gives people the formal right to make choices between different alternatives. It is one that ensures that those alternatives are sufficiently robust so that individuals are able to make choices that truly lead to happiness. Of course not all choices lead to happiness.

People can make choices that they think will lead to happiness, but do not. This is especially serious when a decision is final and irreversible. The wider community has a reasonable interest in ensuring that a person making that choice has at least all of the information in front of them, taking into consideration the fact that people can and often do adapt to new circumstances over time. A belief in the pursuit of happiness entails a belief in freedom but also a belief in the value of encouraging the considered use of freedom through due reflection.

Having reflected on the application of the concept of choice in this context, I would now like to make a few additional comments about the provisions of this bill and the timing of it. This bill proposes to eliminate the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable for those seeking euthanasia and puts those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable on a second track with some distinct requirements. The reconsideration of the question of reasonable foreseeability was provoked by a court decision in Quebec, the Truchon decision, which the government could have chosen to appeal but did not.

This bill deals with more than this question. It also arbitrarily eliminates a number of safeguards that have nothing to do with the Truchon decision. It eliminates the 10-day reflection period. It reduces the required number of witnesses. It eliminates the requirement for contemporaneous consent. The removal of the 10-day reflection period in particular has led experts to point out that this opens the door to same-day death, to a situation where a patient could request and receive euthanasia on the same day.

Some members of this House have strenuously objected to the use of this term. Same-day death is a jarring idea that someone's worst day could be their last, and that temporary suicidal ideation could lead to immediate death. However, those who find this term uncomfortable must face up to the fact that the legislation as written contains no parameters for those for whom death is deemed reasonably foreseeable.

If members believe that time parameters exist, then they should point to where they exist in law. If members believe that time parameters should exist, then they should have supported their reintroduction into the bill. As the law stands before us now, there are no legislated requirements around timelines for those for whom death is reasonably foreseeable.

At third reading, members must choose whether or not they will vote for same-day death in Canada. As Wilberforce said:

You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know.

The Conservatives have proposed reasonable amendments to reintroduce the reflection period, introduce a shorter reflection period and reintroduce requirements around contemporaneous consent and independent witnesses, in particular, recognizing the different experiences people with disabilities have reported with respect to the health care system. We also introduced a requirement that health care practitioners only discuss euthanasia if it is brought up by the patient first. These safeguards matter and would protect vulnerable people by reducing their risk of being rushed and pressured into vulnerable situations.

In response to our call for safeguards, the government said it trusts health care practitioners and these rules are not required. The purpose of a safeguard is not to respond to what may be the average case, but to establish a minimum standard. We are talking about 100,000 people in this country whose professional qualifications would allow them to administer euthanasia. Are those 100,000 so uniquely virtuous or trustworthy they do not need laws to regulate their behaviour while the rest of us do? I believe most people in medicine are doing their best to selflessly serve others, but one needs only listen to the testimony at the justice committee to realize some of those who are providing health care have fallen short of that call. All of us need laws to regulate our behaviour to some extent. If we need regulations, then how can we expect those 100,000 people to be different? Are there no bad apples? I am not arguing they should be subject to unique suspicion, but that they simply need rules and laws to guide their actions like the rest of us do. People charged with taking another person's life should do so within strictly defined parameters for their own good and that of everyone else. I trust doctors just as I trust police officers, but they still need regulations and oversight. We recognize there are some bad apples on our police forces and if we need safeguards for police officers in light of their power to take life, then we also need safeguards for those in power to take life in a medical context.

The government has been working very hard to push the narrative about timing, claiming the Conservatives are responsible for delaying this bill. It should stand to reason that if the government wants us to invest in rapidly passing its bill, it must proceed to persuade us that it is a good bill, which it has not done. The Truchon decision requires a response, but matters would be much simpler if the bill only focused on a response to Truchon instead of a variety of other changes. As it is, we are forced to consider all of the elements together, not just the narrow part that responds to Truchon. This is the government's choice, not ours.

Let us also take stock of how we have come so close to the court deadline. This legislation was presented in February. In May and June, the Conservatives wanted the House to sit in a modified form, but the government refused to allow it. Then it killed its own bill by proroguing in August. All of these moves pushed us into the mid-fall before the bill was considered. It then received a mere four meetings of witness testimony at the justice committee. The government's approach to this legislation has been to delay until the last minute and then demand urgency instead of a considered review. Let us be clear that this is a political tactic designed to subject these radical changes to as little debate as possible.

As a high school student, I had the honour of participating in a special MLA for a Day program at the Alberta legislature. At one of our meetings, a seasoned Progressive Conservative minister explained to us how legislation was passed. Students were surprised by the length and complexity of the process. They asked why it took so long and could the process not be shortened a bit. The minister told us he was glad it took so long because one of the fastest pieces of legislation to ever pass in the Alberta legislature was the Sexual Sterilization Act of 1928, which allowed the government to sterilize people with disabilities against their will based on the analysis that they imposed an undue burden on society. Legislators at that time should have taken more time to listen to people with disabilities and considered the implications of what they were doing. The point that when we are in too much of a hurry to make decisions we risk undermining the fundamental rights of our fellow human beings, in particular, those living with disabilities, has stuck with me to this day.

Those of us on this side of the House who are raising concerns and demanding that time be taken to consider this bill and appropriate safeguards be put in place are on the right side of history. As was the case with the Sexual Sterilization Act of 1928, when this bill is repealed in five or 50 years, I will proudly tell my grandchildren that I took a stand for the universal immutable dignity of every human being.

[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, let me start by saying this whole issue of process being advocated by the Conservative Party is a false argument. The opportunity for debate was and still is there, if that is truly the only interest of the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives need to be more transparent with Canadians. Because they do not support the legislation, it is their intention to prevent it from going forward. That is the honest truth regarding the legislation. I would ask the member to be straightforward with Canadians, admit the Conservative Party of Canada does not support the legislation and that is the reason we are at the stage we currently are at.

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

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is conflating two issues.

Do I think this is a bad bill? Yes. Did I vote against it at second reading, and will I vote against it at third reading? Yes. Did I vote in favour of reasonable amendments from my friend from St. Albert—Edmonton that would have improved the bill? Yes. Does the government control the legislative calendar? Yes. Could the Liberals have not prorogued? Could they have scheduled debate on the bill in May and June? Yes.

Therefore, the fact that we are in this situation of created urgency is manufactured by decisions the government has made. This is the Liberals' own manufactured urgency, designed to limit considered debate on the bill. Yes, I think it is a bad bill, but I also think we could have been debating it in May and June. We could have been considering it earlier if they had not prorogued, and we could have allowed the justice committee to take the time that was necessary.

There were four meetings of witness testimony. Conservatives put forward motions to ask that we have five, that we have one more meeting, given the overwhelming concern in opposition. We had many briefs submitted by medical practitioners that were initially rejected because of some arbitrary timeline that was not even published. It was only after a motion from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton that those briefs were allowed to be translated and presented, but even at that point they were distributed long after the consideration of amendments had started.

This was an unreasonable process, manufactured by a government that wanted the bill to not have to undergo serious debate.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the bulk of the original criteria under Bill C-14, I believe, remain under Bill C-7.

In order to pursue a medically assisted death, a person must satisfy the following eligibility criteria: They must be, of course, of majority age. They must be able to make health care decisions for themselves. They must make a voluntary request for MAID that is not the result of external pressure, for example, from a health care professional or a family member. They must give informed consent after they have received all of the information they need to make their decision, including a medical diagnosis, available forms of treatment and available options to relieve suffering including palliative care. They must have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, meaning that the person has a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability, is in an advanced state of decline in capabilities that cannot be reversed, and experiences unbearable physical or physiological suffering from an illness, disease or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that the person considers acceptable.

Does my hon. colleague support the ability to access medical assistance in dying for people who fulfill those criteria?

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

Madam Speaker, again, there is a bit of a conflation of a few issues here. The member spoke about eligibility criteria. There are eligibility criteria, there are safeguards to ensure that those eligibility criteria are actually being met in a considered way, and there is also a question of context. Do people have those alternatives?

For instance, if a person is suffering in a grievous and irremediable way because they have not had access to care that would address their suffering, they may meet the eligibility criteria. However, there is a problem there in terms of context, in the fact that they are making a decision based on limited options because the system has not provided them with the care that they want.

In terms of the safeguards, we have heard so much at the justice committee, and I encourage the member to look at the testimony from people with disabilities who talked about situations of being pressured and being told that they were selfish for not wanting to pursue this path. We have cases of pressure. Clearly, those are problems and, in principle, members would say that obviously that should not happen. However, the fact is that it is happening right now and the people who are involved in that pressure have not been prosecuted and have not been disciplined.

The government has held up that nobody has been prosecuted under this law so that means it is working well. Given that we have testimony saying it is not working well and there have been no consequences for those who are involved in abuses, that suggests the safeguards as they exist are failing. The government wants to take away more safeguards without addressing some of the context issues. My focus is on addressing the issues of context and the issues of safeguards in order to protect people who are vulnerable.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question relates more to the hospice discussion that is a part of this. I am very blessed in my riding to have two hospices. I have Hospice Georgian Triangle as well as Matthews House Hospice. Both are having a hard time these days because of COVID and fundraisers not getting their money. They are reaching out to the community, and they do such amazing work. It is dignity in dying, not just for the individual but for the family members.

The government obviously is not investing enough money into these types of operations, number one. Number two, how important is that to the bill, having other options for people who are suffering at the end of life?

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

Madam Speaker, it has been wonderful to hear members at different points in this debate speak about the excellent work being done in their ridings by those who are accompanying people in their last days and seeking to provide good-quality palliative care. It is a tragedy that most Canadians do not have access to that and that many Canadians are offered death long before they are able to receive those things that will allow them to effectively manage their pain.

This is a choice that we have to make as legislators. We have to look at the architecture of the choice in front of people. As I said, it not just about giving people choices. It is about asking what the options are that people have and saying if we pull everything out of that life option, if we do not have proper palliative care, if we do not have effective end-of-life supports for people, if we do not have effective pain management, and then say the only option is death or pain, that obviously is not a desirable choice. What we can do is help people get out of that choice by offering an alternative. If people's only options are pain or death, that is not a good place to be. That is not a place we want people to be in and the technology exists for better pain management than the vast majority of Canadians are receiving right now.

We have had multiple bills in the last five years on expediting the death side of it, but not dealing with the life side of it. That sends a clear message about the priorities of the government unfortunately when it comes to seniors and people living with disabilities.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talks about context and options. What I am hearing from the disability community in my riding is exactly that. These are people who before COVID were getting about $1,000 a month in a disability pension. Then we gave everybody $2,000 a month in CERB because we felt that is what was needed for people to live in dignity.

The member talks about the tragedy in long-term care homes. Considering those options, Bill C-7 aside, would he support the NDP proposal to move long-term care into the Canada Health Act so that our seniors get the care they deserve? Would he support raising disability pensions to $2,000 a month so that those people can live in the dignity they deserve?

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

Madam Speaker, we are going to agree with the NDP on the principle that we need to do more and do better to support seniors and people living with disabilities. There may be some cases where we disagree on the mechanism, because Conservatives value the partnerships that can exist in the delivery of, for instance, hospice and long-term care. We believe that by respecting conscience, by respecting what may be the unique and particular mandate of some of those private not-for-profit facilities, through partnerships like this we can do more and offer more collectively. Solidarity is not just about what the government does. Solidarity is about what all of us do together, politicians as well as not-for-profit organizations, faith groups and community groups.

We may disagree on some of those mechanics, but hopefully we can work together based on a common framework that says we need to do better in terms of ensuring people have access to a dignified life option.

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

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to address the House on this very important issue and to continue to act as a voice for those who continue to be ignored.

The government is acting as if rushing the legislation through in order to meet the Truchon deadline is its number one priority. Canadians are suffering because of the pandemic, and while people and businesses continue to fall through the cracks, the government is prioritizing expanding access to euthanasia over providing Canadians with the support they need. Shockingly, it is rushing the bill through before the mandated five-year review of the euthanasia regime in Canada has even taken place. This is reckless and this recklessness will cost people their lives.

The Truchon decision is not a binding legal decision for the House of Commons, but the government is choosing to act as though it is, despite calls from this side of the House to appeal it. When we are dealing with something this serious, with stakes as high as life and death, it is imperative that the process is not rushed by a lower provincial court decision. Our vulnerable citizens deserve better. In all honesty, this deadline is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Amazingly, Bill C-7 would not only expand access to euthanasia to those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable, but goes beyond Truchon by eliminating necessary safeguards that are in place to protect the vulnerable. By removing the 10-day reflection period, people nearing the end of their lives can receive medical assistance in dying on the very same day they request it. That means, in essence, for many Canadians, their worst day will be their last day.

I would like to point out an important statistic from the “First Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada” presented in 2019. In this report, it states that as of the date of its release, 263 Canadians who had requested MAID ended up withdrawing their requests. Because of the current 10-day waiting period, 263 Canadian lives were saved. It is clear these people felt they wanted to die on the day the request was made, but decided days later that they wanted to keep on living.

Had the 10-day reflection period not been in place, 263 Canadians would have had their lives ended prematurely. Maybe it was a phone call from an old friend, meeting with a family member or good news from their physician that caused them to change their minds. It does not matter. The point is that they did. Why does the government want to rob Canadians of the opportunity to make that decision? It justifies the need for Bill C-7 with the Truchon decision, but where in Truchon does it say that?

Another important safeguard that Bill C-7 seeks to eliminate is the requirement for final consent. This is one that truly frightens me. The reasoning behind the removal of this safeguard is the fact that a person may lose the capacity to consent to euthanasia before it is carried out if a person's illness advances causing significant cognitive decline. Therefore, people can give advance consent to have their lives ended should they lose the capacity to make such a difficult decision.

It fascinates me that we all agree that if a person is unable to provide advance consent to sexual activity, and that person is taken advantage of when not having capacity to say no, a crime has been committed. However, the government believes people can provide advance consent to have their lives ended, even if they lose the capacity to say no when the procedure takes place. The problem with the principle of advance consent is that it is impossible to know what people's desires are if they are unable to communicate them. We cannot know if a person in that state truly wants to die. Maybe the individual has had a change of heart and wishes to keep on living at the time MAID is administered, but just can't say that. That is horrifying.

The risks associated with the removal of the 10-day reflection period and the requirement for final consent are too serious for me to accept. We should remember that the stakes are as high as life and death. The government needs to protect vulnerable Canadians. It needs to ensure safeguards are in place. The removal of these safeguards puts their lives in danger.

I would like to remind the government of the voices it ignored in its rush to meet this unnecessary deadline, the voices of disabled Canadians, their doctors and advocates. I remind members of the words of Krista Carr, the executive director of Inclusion Canada, who said that this bill is disabled Canadians' “worst nightmare”. There are also the words of Catherine Frazee, who said that the bill tells people like her that their lives are not worth living.

How about Dr. Heidi Janz? She told the justice committee that the bill “will result in people with disabilities seeking MAID as an ultimate capitulation to a lifetime of ableist oppression.” Roger Foley bravely told the committee from his hospital bed that, if the bill passes, he will not survive and the Parliament of Canada will have his blood on its hands.

I am here in the House to remind the government of the words they refused to listen to. The stream of euthanasia access for those who are not dying is ableist and dangerous. These are not my words. These are their words.

Doctors who work with disabled Canadians made it very clear at committee that a 90-day waiting period is simply not enough time. They explained that suicidal ideations are very common when someone experiences a catastrophic medical episode, but with good care and support they are almost always overcome.

In my last speech on the bill, I introduced the House to Kristine Crowley's story. Since her spinal cord injury 33 years ago, Kristine has lived the kind of life that most able-bodied people dream of, but it took her years after her injury to feel great again. She worries that people like her will decide to end their lives when they are at their lowest point.

Now I will share the story of David Shannon. David suffered a spinal cord injury in a rugby scrum when he was 18 years old. He shared that after his accident he lay in bed close to death more times than he wishes to contemplate. David has gone on to have a career in non-governmental organization leadership and a law practice focused on human rights and health law.

I will share a comment from David:

I have accomplished a lot in my life. I've crossed our great country by the power of my wheelchair—coast to coast. I've jumped out of an airplane at over 25,000 feet. I've made it to the North Pole and planted an accessible parking sign. I’ve written a book, performed in plays and on TV. I’ve received my law degree and been a Human Rights Commissioner. And I am an Order of Ontario and Order of Canada recipient. I’ve loved and been loved. My proudest accomplishment is that I lived.

Several times during this debate, members on this side of the House have asked how many stories like this will never be told if Bill C-7 passes. I urge my hon. colleagues to truly understand what is being asked here. Much like the removal of safeguards, knowing that lives like those of David Shannon and Kristine Crowley will be cut short if this legislation passes is far too great a risk for me to accept.

Those who support the bill continue to fall back on the idea of autonomy to justify their willingness to ignore these risks, so I will read a comment from David Shannon addressing this:

What offends me most about Bill C-7 is that there is an implicit licence to promote death. And I ask, why is there not the promotion to pursue one’s autonomy? When someone is first injured, they are compromised. They need to know there are supports available, that life can be fantastic, not coerced to leave their life and loved ones behind.

When someone is first injured, they are compromised. When someone is compromised, their autonomy is impaired. It is in this compromised state that the government wishes to offer death to Canadians. I will also remind the House of the government's absolute failure to provide disabled Canadians with the care they need. I remind the House that it often takes much longer than 90 days to even see a specialist. I remind the House what the Minister of Disability Inclusion told the justice committee: It is easier to receive MAID in this country than it is to receive a wheelchair.

Not only are we offering death when a patient's autonomy is most compromised, but we are coercing patients to die by failing to offer them care. I have asked this before, and I must ask it again: Do we really want our legacy as members of Parliament to be the Parliament that offered patients death before we offered them care? That is where we are headed with this legislation.

Once again, on behalf of disabled Canadians, their doctors and their advocates, I am begging members of the House to stop this attack on Canada's disabled community. They have been crystal clear about the ultimate abuse that their community would be subject to if the bill passes. I am begging members to hear their pleas. We know the abuse we can expect in the future, so the government will not be able to say it did not know, just that it did not listen.

We have been warned in no uncertain terms about what will come, but now I would like to speak about the abuse that is already happening.

Gabrielle Peters, a journalist who lives with a spinal cord injury, wrote the following in a recent open letter to Canadian senators. “I know that Bill C7 must be stopped because I know passage of this bill will result in preventable deaths of disabled people. I know this because I know those already happen. I know they already happen because I was almost one of them.”

The government is rushing to eliminate safeguards for euthanasia when the current safeguards are not even being adhered to. According to bioethicist Dr. Jaro Kotalik, it is evident provincial and territorial authorities are not fully engaged in their role of monitoring, enforcing and reporting on the performance of the MAID program, which they are expected to do according to federal laws and regulations.

This is clear from Roger Foley's testimony to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. His caregivers, who he depends on for every comfort and necessity of life, have suggested four times that he opt for MAID. Roger's death is not reasonably foreseeable, so this is completely illegal.

It is incredible that on the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, every Liberal MP voted against protections for persons with disabilities being added to Bill C-7. Even the Minister of Disability Inclusion, who expressed in the Senate pre-study that she shares some of the concerns of disabled Canadians, voted against our amendment.

Let me remind the House what the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities said on her visit to Canada: “I am extremely concerned about the implementation of the legislation on medical assistance in dying from a disability perspective. I have been informed that there is no protocol in place to demonstrate that persons with disabilities have been provided with viable alternatives when eligible for assistive dying.”

The opposition tried to address that concern by moving an amendment in committee requiring that patients have meaningful access to care before MAID can be administered. I remind the House that the Liberal members voted it down.

Let me share another concern raised by the rapporteur. She said, “I have further received worrisome claims about persons with disabilities in institutions being pressured to seek medical assistance in dying, and practitioners not formally reporting cases involving persons with disabilities.”

Earlier I referenced the 2019 Health Canada report on MAID. While some of the statistics therein were helpful, there were clearly some issues with the report, namely the lack of any mention of abuse. The information collected was self-reported by MAID providers, so uncovering abuses was unlikely. We know there has been abuse; that much is clear. Cases like Roger Foley's, as well as those of many others, make this undeniable.

Archie Rolland, 18 months before his death by MAID, was transferred against his will from a residence that provided highly specialized care to a geriatric long-term care facility that could not meet his needs. He said that it was not the illness that was killing him. He was tired of fighting for compassionate care.

Sean Tagert, a father with ALS, exhausted from battling for the care he needed to live at home, was told he would have to be placed in a long-term care centre hours away from his home community and family. He was unable to live the remainder of his days at home with his young son and felt the only option was MAID.

There are also the stories of Alan Nichols,Yvon Tremblay, Gabriel Bouchard, Tommy Sec, Jonathan Marchand, Raymond Bourbonnais, Candice Lewis and far too many more. Some of these people are still fighting for their lives and some of them already gave in to the pressure to die.

Why are there so many horror stories? Why is there such a lack of compliance? It is simple: There is a lack of oversight. Many doctors and family members of patients have told me their complaints lie dead in the water. There also exists a culture of severe bullying in medicine, so doctors are scared to speak up out of fear of losing their jobs.

A press release from back in March written by the Physicians' Alliance against Euthanasia said, “The pressure has been intense for many physicians, especially amongst palliative specialists, some leaving even before this latest development. Descriptions were made of toxic practice environments and fear of discipline by medical regulators.”

When I last spoke to the bill, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice asked me if I knew of any cases of pressure the led to prosecution. There are plenty of cases of pressure, just no prosecution. When complaints are made about abuse, there is virtually no avenue for recourse. If someone complains to the police, they are blocked from investigating by doctor-patient confidentiality. When complaints are made to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, they are not followed up on. Many doctors feel cowed into submission before complaints are ever made in the first place.

I attempted to find out from the Legislative Library of British Columbia how many complaints were lodged against doctors with B.C.'s College of Physicians and Surgeons regarding MAID. The response I got is as follows. “The College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. cannot disclose the existence of a patient complaint against a physician, unless the complaint leads to formal discipline. Therefore, the exact number of complaints to the college, whether related to MAID or not, is not possible to ascertain using public sources.”

The response went on to offer me a media scan of newspaper stories related to MAID complaints in the hopes this would be helpful. Imagine that: The only place where any information is publicly available on MAID complaints is in the media. Shame on us. Imagine the cases of elder abuse that are happening under this easy-to-cheat scheme. We have millions of elderly Canadians with no protection from this regime because there is absolutely no way of monitoring it.

Imagine the cases like that of my constituents, who attended a town hall I held when the MAID survey was open for submissions. Together with almost 100 people, we went through each question attempting to understand and respond in a thoughtful way. The more questions we answered, the more we all realized the issue was far too complicated and nuanced for a survey to be of any good.

Then a young father stood up and told his own story of being diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. In the town hall, he explained how he had become depressed following his diagnosis and sought counselling to help him cope with his new reality. Instead, his counsellor offered him MAID. He was shocked that in his darkest hour a professional counsellor would suggest the very thing that was extremely tempting for him, but not in alignment with his ultimate goal to live his best life to its natural conclusion.

The medical professional on our panel was shocked. This was completely illegal under current law and should have been reported, to which the young man said this: How does one even report it? Imagine that: This man, whose life was put in jeopardy, was completely unaware of even how to report the incident. The doctor said he could go online and write a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and told him to do it right away. The young man replied that he did not have the energy. He was going through chemotherapy and was absolutely exhausted. He could not wrap his mind around anything extra at that time.

How many people are out there right now who either do not know who to file a complaint with or just do not have the energy or strength in them to fight? They are already fighting a battle with death and now we want them to go online and file a complaint they may not live to see to its conclusion.

Let me close with a comment from a constitutional lawyer, Derek Ross. He said:

In the face of ongoing evidence that the current procedural safeguards are not being followed, it is alarming that the government is seeking to remove many of those safeguards, rather than strengthen and uphold them. Who is investigating these findings of non-compliance? And who is collecting and consolidating this data? The Carter decision was premised on the assumption that procedural safeguards would be “scrupulously monitored and enforced”. The federal government bears responsibility for reviewing reported cases of non-compliance and ensuring that data regarding non-compliance is gathered and used to inform future policy decisions.

There are horrible abuses of the current MAID regime taking place, which anyone who is engaged with it will know. The bill is a nightmare to disabled Canadians and to physicians across Canada. The risks associated with it are too serious to accept, and the stakes are as high as life and death. We cannot get this wrong.

[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, one gets the sense, listening to the member, that she is very passionate on the issue, and I do not question that at all. However, I substantially differ with her regarding the attention paid, particularly by our health care professionals, family members and dear friends, to the type of abuse that the member seems to be convinced exists, if it is in fact there. I have never heard a complaint. I have never had a constituent complain to me personally regarding abuse in this area. That is not to say it is not there, but I do not think the member supports the idea of MAID legislation, and that is the question I have for her.

Does the member support the need for legislation of this nature, even in an amended form?

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

Madam Speaker, I support two very important principles. The first is that choices are patient-initiated, which is very important. The second is meaningful access to care before MAID is carried out.

If we cannot even manage to offer palliative care or psychiatric care, how can we honestly do what we are doing? The palliative care bill that we passed a number of years ago says that MAID cannot be considered voluntary if there is no meaningful access to care. I am begging members to consider that this is a bad bill. We need to focus on offering good medical care.

I will give the member a few statistics that come from the Canadian Association for Long Term Care. The 2017 federal budget included a historic $6 billion over 10 years for home and community care, but long-term care was not included in this investment. The national housing strategy does not include long-term care. The home support work pilot for foreign caregivers does not include employment in long-term care. The 2019 federal budget did not include investments in long-term care. The federal government flowed $343.2 billion in COVID-19-related spending in the first quarter of this year, and not one dollar was committed to supporting long-term care.

How are we going to support our seniors, our vulnerable, if we do not invest in long-term care?

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

Madam Speaker, the member gave an excellent speech.

It is interesting to observe the discussion between some of our colleagues and members of the government. We are pointing out that in testimony, especially at the justice committee, people were reporting significant problems. The member read some additional stories. These are people with disabilities who were being pushed toward euthanasia even when they had not expressed any interest in it. On the other hand, the government is saying that the system must be working, because nobody has been charged, complaints are not being made through official channels, and nobody has called the office of the member for Winnipeg North to report this issue, which I am not sure would be the appropriate reporting mechanism anyway. There is a disconnect, but at the same time, they are both true. It is true that there are problems. We know this. It is also true that people are not being disciplined or held accountable when abuses take place.

The member has spoken about this, but I would love to hear more about how we can actually address this disconnect and ensure that, first of all, abuses are not taking place, and secondly that we have safeguards to support and protect people and that we give them avenues, or have others advocate for them, when there are situations of pressure towards death. The reality is that we will just never know about most of these cases with the problems in reporting and support that are there. We are just never going to hear about the vast majority of times when this happens.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been an advocate on this issue for many years now, and worked with Mark Warawa, an amazing member of Parliament who is no longer with us. I have had many people come to me with their concerns about issues of non-compliance. Perhaps other members have not been paying attention, but had they, and had they been advocating on behalf of the disabled and the elderly, they would know that this was happening. There is absolutely zero way of monitoring it.

Before anything, we absolutely need to ensure that vulnerable Canadians are protected. We are focusing on Bill C-7 rather than on ensuring that there is some sort of protocol in place, as the UN Rapporteur talked about, where we can monitor what is going on rather than just on MAID providers. We are opening it up more and more, and we have no way of knowing how much abuse is happening.

Again, I am speaking on behalf of those who are not able to speak for themselves and I am saying it is happening. We need to watch out. We need to take care not to push these myths forward.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my colleague a question. Earlier the Leader of the Opposition referred to a legal term called “decisionally vulnerable”. My colleague was just talking about long-term care, but the promise that the government made a full five years ago, in regard to an investment in hospice and palliative care of $3 billion, has not come to pass.

I am wondering how the member feels in regard to whether that would exacerbate the feeling of being vulnerable for those people who are decisionally vulnerable presently.

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

Madam Speaker, what we are hearing is that those who are vulnerable are not able to access meaningful care. Without access to meaningful care, many of them have no choices. They are in our hands and we are not offering them care. We are offering them euthanasia.

I would like to point out what happened with MP Mark Warawa. He was diagnosed with cancer and it took him nine days to see a palliative care specialist. There were only two of them in the hospital there. The fact that it took him nine days to be able to see a palliative care specialist shines a light on the fact that our system needs more support. We need to ensure that these sorts of care are in place for those who are in need of them. To ignore them like this, and to rush this legislation in the way that we have been doing, is absolutely shocking. To see the vulnerable advocates who came forward at the justice committee, and who were ignored, is quite shocking. I would love to see the government stop and actually listen to those who are begging it to ensure there is care, and not a rush to death.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague has been following the debate. I saw her on the screen earlier, so she would have heard everything. One of the arguments that has come up in the course of the debate was a suggestion from the government benches that the bill is being introduced in order to comply with court-ordered rules regarding maintaining the constitutionality of our law. Moreover, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General was opposed to the previous MAID legislation because it failed to do this.

With regard to the various amendments that were put forward by the Conservative Party, is it the case that any of these suggested amendments would have had the effect of causing the new legislation to not be compliant with the Constitution, or is it the member's view that the legislation nevertheless would have been fully compliant if amended as suggested by the Conservatives?

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

Madam Speaker, it is important to understand that we looked very closely at what our amendments were to ensure that they would be allowed. Unfortunately, the Liberals voted all of our amendments down.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

I rise today to participate in this important debate on Bill C-7, which seeks to expand medical assistance in dying, or MAID. While the Liberal government has summarily dismissed the role of Parliament with respect to the all-party committee study, an evaluation of this law, I believe it is still important to ensure my remarks appear on the record because Bill C-7 is literally a matter of life and death.

Let me begin by quoting my hon. colleague, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, who posed this question to the government during the earlier days of our hybrid sittings. In the context of advocating for defibrillators to be placed in community halls, hockey rinks and other places Canadians gather, he asked:

It will cost approximately a billion dollars to renovate Centre Block. I believe that's accurate. It will cost $5 million to put these AEDs, defibrillators, into all police cruisers. This would save 300 lives per annum. Is the cost of saving 300 lives per annum—one half of 1% of a billion dollars—more or less important than renovating Centre Block?

My colleagues on both sides of the House know I am a strong supporter of our institutions and our history, and of protecting them for future generations to appreciate, learn from and, in some cases, even revere. This is true of Parliament, historic sites across Canada and even statues of our founders for their vision and even, at times, for their faults, and sometimes many faults. My hon. colleague for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston was posing a simple but profound question to Parliament, which was what is the value of life, and how can it be measured? It is a question that all members of Parliament have been consumed with since the start of the coronavirus pandemic: How can we protect and save lives? It is a question that will form the basis of debate in the House of Commons for the remainder of our natural lives and well beyond.

In just over eight months, all levels of government have spent a combined half a trillion dollars in their struggle against the pandemic. Rich or poor, old or young, married or single, with kids or grandparents: it does not matter what families or households look like. Everyone is impacted by COVID-19, and governments have acted. The measures brought forward were, in one way or another, based on one simple, profound truth: that elected officials at every level of government across the country support life, and want our nation to fight for it and protect it.

I stand today as someone who will be voting against this piece of legislation, Bill C-7. Medically assisted death is a practice that, if left unchecked, could in some dark corners of society turn the right to die into an obligation to die.

How is it that a government that advocated overwhelmingly to accept closures and economic lockdowns in response to the coronavirus can be the same government that has unmoored us from protecting Canadians, by vastly expanding the legal parameters of medically assisted death? It is grisly.

I would like to quote the member for Vancouver Granville, the former minister of justice, who stated the following about this legislation, Bill C-7:

[Why] is Bill C-7, medical assistance in dying, abolishing the safeguard of a 10-day reflection period and reconfiguration of consent, thereby introducing advance requests for MAID?

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.

It is very troubling that this is the direction the Liberals have chosen. A single decision in a single province by a single lower court has upended the law as it stands today, passed by a previous Parliament.

A culture of life is abandoned. Even the most basic safeguards are deemed by the current justice minister, the cabinet and caucus to be overly restrictive. We have a fragile consensus established in the last Parliament and with Bill C-7, we will undo that important consensus. I hope we can rediscover that consensus again in a future Parliament when its leaders are more reflective on matters of life and death and perhaps will express some humility when we face these questions.

We must, as parliamentarians, even those who sit across the aisle, reject the unwise extension of medical assistance in dying in our society. However, I am dismayed that this will not happen.

Bill C-7 is medical assistance in dying in name only. Its sponsors cling to that description to give it a fig leaf of respectability and to make it palatable to the public. Bill C-7 would strip away both safeguards to protect vulnerable Canadians and even the belief that one's death should be near, imminent or even reasonably foreseeable. Whereas medical assistance in dying has built in safeguards, today's bill does not and we are simply left with medical assisted death.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the issues that is really important is the fact that we have to deal with the courts and court decisions, which lays out questions that government has to look at with respect to legislation.

What I find concerning about the last court decision is that the federal government never appealed it. I do not think there has ever been a first nation ruling in any court ever that the federal government has not appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, fighting tooth and nail. However, on a fundamental question on the issue of a foreseeable death, something that is difficult for all us to deal with but we understand it, we understand why it was brought in and we understand why the Supreme Court made us come forward with legislation, this was ruled on by a provincial court and the federal government did not appeal it before bringing it in for legislation and then went beyond the decision.

Does my hon. colleague think it would have been better if we had actually appealed it, had a very clear ruling from the Supreme Court and then responded to that?