Debates of Dec. 8th, 2020

Criminal Code

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to again speak to the bill. There were a lot of things that I wanted to say the first time around at report stage that I could not share because we ran out of time, but hopefully I will be able to conclude my remarks today.

I am splitting my time with the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke in the House earlier today and talked about how Bill C-7 is moving our country from a regime of assisted death to a regime of assisted suicide. We presently have in place former Bill C-14, which was brought in as a response to the Carter decision. That bill recognized the fact that the Supreme Court said that medically assisted death was a right but needed to be surrounded by guardrails, by safeguards that would ensure that the most vulnerable in Canada do not end up dying when they have an opportunity to live a productive life.

The Carter decision resulted in legislation that imposed a requirement that death needed to be reasonably foreseeable. The legislation before us eliminates that and a whole bunch of other safeguards that the original legislation was intended to keep in place.

Why are we at this place in the first place? Members in the House know that a lower court from Quebec, one single judge, ruled in the Truchon case that the reasonable foreseeability aspect of Bill C-14 violated the Charter of Rights. It was unconstitutional. This is a lower court from Quebec, one single judge, making a life and death decision for Canadians across the country.

One would expect, from a Liberal government that takes veterans to court and takes first nations to the Supreme Court of Canada, that this life and death decision would be appealed. The Truchon case would be appealed through to the Supreme Court so that we could have the Supreme Court, which articulated the Carter decision, comment on whether reasonable foreseeability was in fact constitutional.

Instead the Liberal government said, no, it was not going to appeal and in fact it would simply respond to the Truchon case and do exactly as that single judge of a lower court asked it to do. The Liberals eliminated reasonable foreseeability from Canada's medical assistance in dying regime. That is why we are here.

Members may recall, when C-14 first came forward, when the Carter decision had to be responded to, that parliamentarians noted the fact that this represented the crest of a steep, slippery slope toward making assisted suicide available to a broader and broader group of vulnerable Canadians. That was the concern that we expressed at the time and, quite frankly, some people mocked us. They said we were fearmongering. They pooh-poohed our concerns. Today, here we are and our concerns have been borne out.

Last time I did not get a chance to read into the record a letter from a doctor in my community of Abbotsford, Dr. James Warkentin, who expressed his concerns about the legislation. He says, “I appreciate your invitation to write to you regarding C-7. As a family physician, the decriminalization of medical assistance in dying in 2016 struck me at my core. How could killing someone one day cost me my licence and send me to jail, and the next day be expected of me to provide? Furthermore, how could our most vulnerable be protected from the pressure to end their life one day and then have state-sanctioned avenues the next?” He went on to reference the six reasons why over 1,000 Canadian physicians have signed a letter opposing Bill C-7.

In a moment I am going to read that letter into the record, because I believe those judges would appreciate having that letter on the record so it is very clear that many medical professionals across the country oppose Bill C-7, which would remove many of the safeguards, the guard rails, the protections for the vulnerable which were originally intended under the Carter decision.

The letter begins like this:

This bill, expanding “medical assistance in dying” (MAiD) to virtually everyone who is sick and suffering in Canada, will, if passed in its current form, make our country the world leader in administering death.

As medical doctors, we feel compelled to voice our dismay at how individuals who have little lived experience of the realities involved in the everyday practice of medicine suddenly and fundamentally changed the nature of medicine by decriminalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

As a side note, when they refer to “individuals who have little lived experience of the realities involved in the everyday practice of medicine”, they are referring to us, the Parliamentarians in the House. It goes on:

Unfortunately, our patients are the ones who suffer the most from the consequences of this ill-devised scheme. The shock of a sudden illness, or an accident resulting in disability, can lead patients into feelings of anger, depression, and guilt for requiring care - emotions that, with proper support and attention, can resolve over time. The care and encouragement shown by physicians may be the most powerful force in overcoming despair and providing hope. Unfortunately, patients can no longer unconditionally trust their medical professional to advocate for their life when they are at their weakest and most vulnerable. Suddenly, a lethal injection becomes part of a repertoire of interventions offered to end their pain and suffering.

Bill C-7 would allow those who are not dying to end their lives by a lethal injection at the hands of a doctor or nurse practitioner. Shockingly, most of the safeguards that Parliament deemed necessary in 2016 to protect the lives of vulnerable individuals from a wrongful death are being removed. Under the new bill, an individual whose natural death is considered to be “reasonably foreseeable” could be diagnosed, assessed and euthanized all in one day. We are very concerned that removing the 10- day reflection period and other safeguards will lead to an increase in coerced or tragically unconsidered deaths.

The reckless removal of safeguards previously deemed essential will place desperately vulnerable patients directly in harm’s way and may cost them their very lives....

Our profession has been coerced into facilitating suicide rather than preventing it, for ever-increasing numbers of citizens. We watch in utter dismay and horror at how the nature of our medical profession has been so quickly destroyed by the creation of misguided laws.

That is an excerpt from a letter from over 1,000 physicians in Canada. It does go on, but I do not have time to complete it.

That is the perspective coming from our medical profession across the country and it is the disability groups, medical professionals, faith groups, palliative care advocates and first nations that are all calling for more caution before expanding assisted suicide, yet the government has refused to listen to those concerns.

At the committee, our Conservative opposition members brought forward numerous amendments that would have addressed some of the failings of the legislation, that would have reinstated the protections for which the vulnerable within our country have called. Seventy-two disability groups oppose this legislation. They want more protections, yet they are not there.

I encourage my colleagues across the way to please give this legislation more time. Give us an opportunity to get this right.

[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, whether it was the Supreme Court of Canada five years ago in the Carter decision, or the Superior Court decision in the province of Quebec or parliamentarians in this or previous sessions debating this for hundreds, if not thousands, of hours via committees or the chamber at second or third reading stages and so much more, this issue has been debated in a very passionate way for many years. Let there be no doubt that every life is of equal value. I believe that Canadian society wants this legislation passed.

When the Conservatives were in committee, they proposed amendments and had those amendments passed. I assumed they would agree to pass this legislation. It was not just the Liberal Party agreeing, other political parties in the House also agreed.

Could the member provide his thoughts on that issue?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member has suggested that the contents of Bill C-7 have been debated for years and years. The legislation was just brought forward by the Liberal government. The issues of expanding medical assistance in dying to effectively become assisted suicide need fulsome debate, because it is an issue of life and death.

Unfortunately, the member does not realize that. He does not understand how critical it is that the 72 disability groups across Canada fear the legislation will put their members at risk. The most vulnerable in our society, whether it is the poor, children or those with mental health issues, all feel vulnerable under the legislation. Why is that and why is the Liberal government not listening to those concerns?

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

Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to be part of a party that allows its members to vote with their conscience when it comes to bills like this. We have stressed that this is not a partisan issue. From what we heard from Canadians across the country, this impacts them at their core. I would like some feedback from the member on the concept of being able to vote our conscience.

I grieve for people across the floor and around me who I do not think have that freedom. That is something Canadians absolutely look for in their Parliament, the realization of our responsibility in these circumstances to vote our conscience.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am safe in saying that the Conservative Party is the only party in the House that takes free votes seriously, that regularly provides its MPs the avenue of saying yes or no to legislation, especially on issues of conscience.

I would extend that to protections that should be available to physicians and medical practitioners across Canada to not to be involved in any way in facilitating assisted death or assisted suicide. Across our country physicians are being told it is part of their obligations as physicians to refer people to another physician if they themselves will not counsel on the issue of medical assistance in dying. This is not about a country that respects freedoms and conscience rights.

We need to step into that gap, protect physicians from having to do something against their conscience in the same way the Conservative leader provides us as parliamentarians a free vote on any matters of conscience.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been a little disappointed at the tenor of the debate recently regarding MAID. I am hopeful we can carry this back to the passionate, but compassionate, debate we had earlier.

This is a matter of conscience and I am certainly very proud to be part of a party that has given me, as the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, the freedom to decide how I would like to vote on this bill.

When we look at the legislation, after extensive consultation with folks inside and outside of my riding, a number of issues have occurred. The challenging part for me is that despite many advocates for persons with disabilities raising the alarm bells, much media attention on this and how they might feel, we really have not seen any amendments or changes to this legislation.

I would say this earnestly and with openness for my friends across the aisle. Are we so arrogant that we believe this language is absolutely perfect and completely beyond improvement? The member for Papineau used to say a number of times that there was always room to be better and there was always the opportunity to be better. In response to that, with all kindness and respect, this bill can be better and there are opportunities to do that.

Some legislation the government has put in during this last year alone has failed. The rent subsidy program did not go off as well as the government had hoped. All reasonable observers, and even members on the other side, would acknowledge that. That is why they had to relaunch the program. The LEEFF program is also not working up to capacity and no doubt will have to be redone. We have seen those challenges.

The difficulty with this legislation is that there is no ability to redo it. This is a life or death matter. If we lose members of our most vulnerable communities due to the legislation, we cannot come back. There is no redo of this. I am perfectly aware, as a lawyer, of the obligation the court has put in front of us from the Truchon decision to get this legislation revised. However, there are multiple devices, as our leader spoke about, to get that time extended.

In all respect and fairness, any reasonable, objective observer would say that it was the government that prorogued Parliament for an additional six weeks. We would have had the time to pass this on time.

I will get into my remarks, but let us keep the tenor of this debate how it is meant to be and how our constituents want it to be. They want a deep discussion of the important issues of passion, the very reason our Parliament exists and the very reason this reasonable debate is what makes Canada, in my opinion, such a great country.

To get into the substance of my speech, those who support Bill C-7 do not want anyone to suffer. Those who do not support it do not want anyone to suffer either. It is important to begin this controversial debate by recognizing that both sides, regardless of how different their beliefs are, are passionate for the right reasons. As with any legislation that will have a dramatic impact on people's lives, the discussion is very important.

Medical assistance in dying is a relatively new topic. Canada is one of the few countries that has legalized it so far, and as such, we much proceed in this new territory with the utmost caution. As our members have spoken about, we need the safeguards. This is not just the members of the Conservative Party mentioning this. Some of our most noted jurists in Canadian history have brought this up, jurists from all sides of the political spectrum who have called for and demanded that there be safeguards. As we say, and it is only common sense, this is a matter of life and death. While we should be guaranteeing a death with dignity, I strongly believe we should first guarantee a dignified end of life.

In order to do this, in order to make sure that people are choosing medical assistance in dying for the right reason, I believe that we need to have a conversation around the state of palliative care in our country. Unfortunately, the state of palliative care in our country is less than favourable. While medical assistance in dying is currently considered an essential service, palliative care is not. This is an issue that should be gravely concerning to everyone in this House and across our country.

Palliative care is a type of health care for patients and families facing life-limiting illnesses. It helps patients to achieve the best possible quality of life right up to the end of one's life. I know, and I am sure that many members share this, I have had some of the most important conversations of my life with loved ones and friends at or near the end of their life. These moments provide so much quality to those who carry forward and provide so much advice that I carry forward with me to this very day.

Where it is possible to retain a reasonable quality of life, we as a society have a sacrosanct obligation to make sure that people are taken care of, so that, if they do decide on medical assistance in dying, they have done so of their own free will and not because of a poor quality of life that could have been avoided.

Quality palliative care focuses on the concerns of patients and families, and works to support patients through both physical and mental symptoms of serious illness. This may include everything from helping to manage a patient's pain and symptoms to keeping them comfortable in their home for as long as possible.

Unfortunately, while 75% of Canadians would prefer to have their last moments at home, only about 15% have access to palliative home care and 60% die, instead of being surrounded in the homes that some of them have grown up in, in cold, stark hospitals.

Many physicians have raised the concern, because the majority of Canadians do not have access to high-quality palliative care. It is possible that many people, or at least some people, may be choosing MAID because they do not feel there are other options. Amongst the concerns are those laid out by Dr. Stephanie Kafie, a family physician in Niagara Falls with a focus on caring for the elderly.

She has said that something that has not been considered in the rush of passing this bill is the state of palliative care. It is not considered an essential service, however, MAID is. In her experience, many requests for MAID reflected a need for palliative care. Rushing misguided laws regarding the medical profession has led to an erosion of their profession and started significant damage to doctor-patient relations. Their hands are tied. They are not consulted on the drastic changes that are being made.

As Dr. Kafie notes, the importance of consulting with doctors in the creation of legislation is so crucial. As is so often is the case with parliamentarians, not enough people working on the legislation have any any experience in the field itself.

Dr. Drijber, a palliative care physician, has spoken out on this issue, stating that this legislation seems to ignore the importance of the dignity that comes with palliative care, the importance of those final moments for both the living and those who will pass on. He has gone so far as to say that it seems the government has not fully consulted with experts or people who work in the field to help guide them through their decision-making process.

When we come to a conclusion here, in all earnesty and openness, I am reaching out to the other side. They know that there are people in their constituencies who will have differing opinions from them, as do I. We need to make sure that all voices are heard. Are we so arrogant as parliamentarians to think we should not change the legislation, that we cannot, as the member for Papineau has said, always do better?

[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, where I agree wholeheartedly with the member is in regard to the issue of palliative care, home care services or long-term care services.

Even though these are provincially administered, the national government does have a role to play. I have always believed that. It goes beyond just transferring cash. We have to ensure there are some standards, that there are opportunities for individuals to be able to have those types of services, in particular, palliative care. We have too many palliative care patients passing in hospital hallways and rooms versus in a proper palliative care facility or in a home.

Could my friend provide his thoughts in terms of to what degree he would like to see the national government take a more proactive approach in working with other governments, and possibly what role he believes Ottawa should be playing in ensuring that there is more consistency across Canada when it comes to these types of services, in particular, palliative care?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that well-thought-out and reasonable question. I understand completely that the member's intentions are nothing but the best to make sure that our seniors and those who are at the end of their life have the best possible care.

It is also important to enable innovation and provincial innovation, so that we can see that for Quebec or Ontario, and we are able to get those best practices across the various provinces. It is also critical that we manage our finances well, so that the federal government is in a position to enable proper funding of health care transfers, not as the transfers were slashed under the Chrétien government.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's background is not a lie. He is a lawyer.

There were concerns expressed in 2016 with the legislation then, about the potential for judicial creep and now we are experiencing some of that. Why would the decision, then, not be appealed to the Supreme Court where the court could actually uphold some of the guardrails and safeguards that it put in place? I am wondering if my hon. colleague would have a comment on that.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, truly, we have some of the most brilliant jurists in all the world in Canada, in our upper courts, in the Supreme Court, and in our lower courts as well, so why we would not give them the opportunity to put their learned intelligence and wisdom to this legislation I just do not understand.

As we have seen, our justices have much to contribute to this debate. Whether it be Justice McLachlin or Justice Cory or Justice Sopinka, they have all offered so much to this debate and to the discussion and, in many ways, they define the very terms of this conversation.

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

Madam Speaker, I always like listening to my colleagues and I especially like listening to my friend from Winnipeg North because he really focuses the discussion so clearly. He said that he thinks it is really important to learn lessons about palliative care and how the federal government could play a role. Well, he stood in the House with his Prime Minister when we brought forward a national palliative care strategy and the Liberals voted for it.

I raised it during the first round of discussions on the end-of-life bill and asked why we do not have a palliative care strategy.

The Liberals said, “Oh well, we will but we have to respond to the Supreme Court, we have to do this first”.

Therefore, here we are. We have another end-of-life bill and we have the Liberals saying, “Can anyone can tell us how we could do a palliative care strategy? It is such a good idea, maybe we could start some kind of conversation.” We have been through this. We voted on it. We told the Canadian people it would happen and the Liberals did nothing. How long is it going to take?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I might have difficulty answering that question. I certainly enjoy the member. I must say he is one of my favourite parliamentarians with his ability to ask questions.

In response to that question, the time for action is now. I would concur that, unfortunately, the current government does have some challenges sometimes with the follow-through of its great words, as the member's leader would say.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

Here we are on December 8, 2020, only 10 days away from a deadline imposed on Parliament by the Quebec Superior Court from the Truchon decision. The Liberal side of the House is suggesting that perhaps it is the fault of members of the Conservative Party for delaying progress on this very important topic. I take exception to that.

How did we come to this point in the first place? Our leader spoke this morning and he raised this topic, and so I am just going to repeat some of what he said. First of all, there was the failure of the current Attorney General to appeal this decision of the Quebec Superior Court. It is a lower court. In my opinion it was a wrong decision, and it should have been appealed, first of all, to the Quebec Court of Appeal. We would have had the benefit of the wisdom of that bench. Subsequently it should have been appealed, like all important constitutional issues, at the Supreme Court of Canada. I have the deepest respect for the Supreme Court of Canada and the constitutional expertise and scholarship that has come out of that court. The Attorney General has missed that opportunity to be able to engage the Supreme Court of Canada in the discussion on this very important topic.

Parliament, as our leader said, is the top court of the land. We are sovereign. We can make and unmake any laws that we want, provided that they are within the four walls of the Constitution of this country. That is the dialogue that we should have had with the Supreme Court of Canada. That, sadly, will not be happening on this topic.

The second very important point is prorogation. We had been making good progress on Bill C-7. We were talking about this back in February and March already. Prorogation happened, and the debate had to go right back to square one. How is that our fault? Why did the Liberal government decide on prorogation? It was not for any good policy considerations. It was strictly for political considerations, so we are not going to wear that. The Liberal government is going to wear that.

Another point that I would like to raise is that if Bill C-7 reacted in the narrow way that the Truchon decision required, this debate would be much shorter and faster, but the government has decided to take the opportunity to expand the debate. The Liberals are suggesting that we are disrespecting the Truchon decision and the Quebec Superior Court by raising these issues. We are not the ones who are raising the additional issues; it is the government in its Bill C-7 that is doing so. If Bill C-7 was just about the Truchon decision, then it would not be talking about removing the 10-day reflection period. The “First Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada, 2019”, just recently published by Health Canada, has told us that, of the 7,336 MAID applications in 2019, 236 of the applicants changed their minds during the 10-day reflection period. Obviously, that 10-day reflection is there for a purpose. It is serving that purpose very well. Why would we be removing that?

Furthermore, Bill C-7 has introduced the concept of advance directives and, consequently, the elimination of contemporaneous consent by the person who is asking for the medical assistance in dying. That would be shifting the final decision away from the person receiving medical assistance in dying to the person who would now be going to apply it. We are no further ahead. I do not think that is an improvement.

Then, there is the other requirement, removing the second witness. What is that about? Why is that so important? There are so many legal documents that require two witnesses, wills for example, to make sure that there is not coercion on the part of people who might benefit. In the case of wills, the beneficiaries of the will might benefit. It is a long-standing legal principle that two witnesses be required. These changes are significant, and disability groups across the country have told us so loudly and clearly.

Of the many groups that appeared before the committee hearings, not one of the disability groups was in favour of Bill C-7 and the removal of these protections. That is why we are at an impasse in this eleventh hour.

Mr. Neil Belanger, executive director of the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, commented on a newly released document entitled “In Plain Sight”, commissioned by British Columbia's minister of health, the Hon. Adrian Dix, to review indigenous-specific racism in British Columbia's health care system. Although it is a review of B.C.'s health care system, the principles in it would apply right across Canada. Mr. Belanger and the group that he represents are concerned about the proposed removal of safeguards. He said:

There is no debating the systemic racism and discrimination within Canada’s health systems, and the experiences and deaths of Indigenous peoples when seeking care. We all would be remiss to believe that this somehow would not permeate into MAID.

He went on to say in his testimony before the Senate committee that:

...the Government of Canada has failed to engage the Indigenous peoples of Canada living with disabilities, Elders, and Indigenous Leadership in relation to MAID on any tangible level. This lack of engagement is contrary to the government’s stated commitment to reconciliation, UNDRIP, and the CRPD.

Other disability groups are saying the same, yet this government is refusing to listen. Mr. Belanger takes this a step further. He and the organization for which he speaks advocate sticking with the end-of-life criteria already in place after the Carter decision and after Bill C-14, which was the well-considered opinion of Parliament just four and a half years ago.

Recently, when Mr. Belanger's organization presented to the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs on Bill C-7, he said that:

[BCANDS]...stands with our sister disability organizations and countless others across Canada in calling for the removal of Track 2 in the proposal changes to Bill C-7, and limiting access to MAID to the end of life criteria...

Track 2 is medical assistance for those people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable.

People may state the obvious: that this is all water under the bridge and that the Truchon decision said that it is unconstitutional. To go back to my original comments, that decision should have been appealed, and it was not. I am going to have to tell Mr. Belanger that the debate has been had already. This government has sadly treated as a settled constitutional principle that it is unconstitutional for any law of this country to refuse medical assistance in dying to those who meet all the other criteria, but are not dying.

This is a fundamental shift that was not debated. This government has stated on many occasions that it had broad consultations and 300,000 people responded, but the one question it never asked was if people agreed that medical assistance in dying should be given to those whose death was not reasonably foreseeable. The fundamental question was never asked. That is not a true consultation, in my opinion. It is a pretext for advancing a legislative agenda that had been preconceived. It has been said on several occasions in the House during this debate that the current Attorney General voted against Bill C-14 four years ago because it did not address that, and did not expand MAID to that point. This is the current Attorney General imposing his will on Parliament and forestalling that very important debate.

The first report by Health Canada on the state of medical assistance in dying stated that roughly 2% of Canadians in 2019 used medical assistance to die. That is the average across the country, but it is much lower in some provinces. It is the average in Quebec and far above the average in British Columbia.

Why is that? Is it because there are more sick people or old people—

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

The member will have to complete that thought during questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[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, I believe the bill we are debating reflects a great deal of effort on the part of the Supreme Court of Canada and its decision five years ago, the Superior Court of Quebec, tens of thousands of Canadians and hundreds of hours of debate inside and outside the chamber in the form of standing committees and so forth. From what I understand, it has the support of the New Democrats, the Green Party, the Bloc and the Liberals. We know it is not an issue of process, and I would counter any false argument presented by the Conservatives that it is. Rather, the Conservatives do not want this bill to come to a vote because they believe it should have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Would the members opposite be transparent with Canadians and make it very clear that this is the real reason why they are not supporting the legislation?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, the real reason we are not supporting the legislation is because it does not provide adequate protection for the disabled. It is not just members from the Conservative Party stating that, but many disability groups that have come to committee to represent the opinions of their members. This is a broad discussion across all of Canada.

Why is the Liberal government not listening to those real concerns? We have offered reasonable solutions and amendments. The Liberals are turning all of them down. It seems they have predetermined what the outcome will be. They are not listening to the debate.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues for the very thoughtful and compassionate speeches and the different perspectives I have heard. One issue I have not heard anybody speak about today is that Bill C-7 creates a waiver of final consent for those already assessed and approved for assistance who fear the loss of competence before their chosen date. This is colloquially referred to as the “Audrey Parker amendment”.

Audrey Parker was diagnosed with stage four breast cancer that had metastasized to her bones and caused a tumour to grow on her brain. She spent the last weeks of her life raising awareness about these challenges. She was worried she would lose competence and be unable to give her final agreement because of the influence of the cancer on her brain, and she ended her life prematurely. I do not think that is what anybody wants. We want people to live their full lives. We do not want anybody exercising their right to MAID before they would otherwise want to, because of a legal requirement.

Does my hon. colleague have any comments on that part of the bill?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have to admit that the Audrey Parker argument is very compelling. Nobody wants Canadians to die earlier than they should.

I believe the best argument against the Audrey Parker principle, as it is sometimes referred to, is that last year alone, and we have hard evidence of this, 263 people changed their minds during that 10-day waiting period. I recognize that even under Bill C-7 there is an opportunity for people to change their minds if they are still cognizant. If not, then somebody else makes the decision. Mrs. Parker probably would have signed that document, but ultimately it is the doctor who has to make the final decision as to whether or not to administer the lethal injection. That doctor might wonder if she is one of the 263 people who would change their minds. Why is it the doctor's decision?

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

Madam Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the debate on Bill C-7, having myself been a member of the joint committee behind Bill C-14.

I heard my colleague say that he has the utmost respect for the Supreme Court of Canada. I would remind him that we cannot talk about Bill C-7 without first talking about Bill C-14, since Bill C-7 is the logical and natural continuation of Bill C-14. On top of that, the Supreme Court of Canada, in which my colleague has great confidence, issued a unanimous ruling in Carter.

Is it not entirely reasonable to keep to the Carter decision, for example, since the Truchon decision addresses in some ways the gaps in Bill C-14, to accept that Bill C-7 finally closes the loop of the Carter case and Bill C-14?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, that question gives me an opportunity to distinguish between the Carter and the Truchon decisions. I have the greatest respect for the Supreme Court of Canada. There is great scholarship coming out of there.

The Carter decision underlined the importance of a scrupulous regime of protection and safeguards for the disabled. Truchon did not undermine that, so there is no contradiction there. It is this Parliament that is contradicting Carter.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier this morning, the leader of the official opposition began today's debate with a strong speech about the problems with Bill C-7 and how the government has been handling it. He started by saying that it could be the most important bill before this Parliament, regardless of how long it actually lasts. After all, we are discussing a matter of life and death, and the decision we make here will make all the difference for countless Canadians.

These are people who will be making their own choices, which will directly impact their own lives, their legacies, their loved ones and their caregivers. It is a choice they might not have expected to ever have to make, whether because of a sudden illness, the unrequested suggestion of assisted suicide or some other reason. Anything could happen, which is why we have to maximize the protection and safeguards there will be for each person involved, especially for those who are most at risk of abuse and neglect.

At this last stage of debate in the House of Commons, I want to focus on the choice, or in some cases the lack of choice, a person might face. Some argue we are seeking their best interests by expanding access to MAID, not only for the relief of suffering but also purely for the sake of free choice.

On the idea of choice, we have to remember this is not an ordinary decision. Someone's death, premature or otherwise, is literally a point of no return. The decision is final. With all the circumstances leading someone to consider the end of their life, it gets complicated very quickly.

To explain it from someone's lived experience, I will quote journalist Ben Mattlin, who suffers from spinal muscular atrophy. He wrote the following in the New York Times:

I’ve lived so close to death for so long that I know how thin and porous the border between coercion and free choice is, how easy it is for someone to inadvertently influence you to feel devalued and hopeless—to pressure you ever so slightly but decidedly into being “reasonable,” to unburdening others, to “letting go.”

Perhaps, as advocates contend, you can’t understand why anyone would push for assisted-suicide legislation until you’ve seen a loved one suffer. But you also can’t truly conceive of the many subtle forces—invariably well meaning, kindhearted, even gentle, yet as persuasive as a tsunami—that emerge when your physical autonomy is hopelessly compromised.

Despite Mattlin's significant physical disability, he is a father, a husband, an author and a journalist. He has a successful life and he knows what he wants. He is less vulnerable than others who lack the confidence and spark he has, who could easily be persuaded that assisted suicide was their best option.

The idea of this happening voluntarily is, in many subtle ways, the start of a slippery slope that leads to it happening less voluntarily, or involuntarily. The choice is not always so free, especially if real alternatives are lacking. One of the greatest fears a lot of people face in their lifetime is their own mortality, and in a lot of breadth that is what we are discussing here today.

When I talk about Bill C-7, when I talk about facing our own mortality, I often reflect on the experiences my wife and I have had, when grandparents and other loved ones within our family have passed away. We have spent countless hours at their sides, either in the hospital or in their care home. The time spent with one's family is so precious and valuable.

Within the last year, the health of my wife's grandma deteriorated. Her husband had passed away a few years prior, and she had been living in, I think, level 1 care for most of COVID. We were not allowed to go into the facility and had to stand outside the building. She had a nice corner unit with lots of windows, so we were able to observe her condition and speak to her through the window.

Over the course of time, we watched her state of mind and physical state deteriorate steadily and progressively. Her state degraded to the point that she could not lift her head when we came to the window to talk to her. She could not see who was there.

When the restrictions were lifted and one or two people were allowed into the unit, my wife was able to sit beside her grandma, hold her hand and tell her that she loved her. To see her state improve, and to be able to lift her spirits, was so powerful.

I think that as we are having this discussion on Bill C-7, we especially need to ensure that we value life and that we are giving people every option to live their lives. We should also have the opportunity to have our loved ones at our sides as we go through the final moments and face the ultimate end of our mortality, the end of our life.

We need to make sure that people have full supports as well. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I note that one of the biggest parts of Bill C-7 is the need for palliative care. I have talked at length previously about the need for it to make sure we are providing real choice and real options to people so they have all the options they need and, quite frankly, deserve.

The vast majority of people who are being considered under Bill C-7, or who will consider MAID, are in our senior population. When we look at the contributions they have made to our society, these are the people who built our country. These are the people who have provided us with the freedoms and opportunities we have. However, here we are discussing a bill, which we will be voting on in the near future, that basically signals to them that we do not value their lives and do not value the contributions they have made to this country. That is what the bill signals.

I know people will argue that this is not what the bill is doing, but sometimes it is not about what the bill directly does, but what it is going to do indirectly. The moment we signify to our country, to our citizens, that we inherently do not value and defend life to its fullest extent, we are sending the wrong message to people.

I realize that people who advocate for Bill C-7 and medical assistance in dying are doing it from a position of compassion. I will never question somebody who says that is the reason they are advocating for it. However, we also need to realize that part of a compassionate response to people who are at that point in their life—

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

I apologize, but the member will have two and a half minutes to finish his speech after Oral Questions and five minutes of questions and answers.

Anna Kisil

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, Gandhi once said, “The future depends on what you do today.” Today I rise to honour someone who shaped our future by what she did every day.

Last month our community lost Anna Kisil. Anna immigrated to Canada from Ukraine in 1990 and with her family built several businesses. Then she gave back to our community, to Canada and to Ukraine, and not just with her generosity, but with her leadership, eventually becoming president of the World Federation of Ukrainian Women's Organizations.

Anna received many medals and awards for her service, including the Cross of Ivan Mazepa awarded by the president of Ukraine.

What struck me about Anna is how she supported younger people to ensure that they could make a difference for today and for the future. In fact, one time Anna fought for me and gave me an opportunity without which I would likely not be standing here today living my dream, and I am not alone.

About that moment, Anna once said to me, “I fought for you because I believed in your potential to make a difference.” Anna Kisil not only made a difference, but helped others to do so as well. In so doing, she made a monumental contribution to Canada, to Ukraine and to our community for today and for the future.

Vichnaya Pamyat.

COVID-19 Pandemic Response

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all those constituents who have reached out to me with their questions and concerns during this pandemic. Canadians have questions about the decisions being made by their governments and the plans to get their lives back.

It is alarming to hear the push-back on citizens who are engaged and asking critical questions about the Prime Minister's comments during his speech to the United Nations about a reset. By refusing to answer these legitimate questions and hiding behind name-calling, the Prime Minister demeans his office. To quote a recent article, “Labelling concerned citizens ‘conspiracy theorists’ and claiming that those who accept the prime minister's very words given at the United Nations, are succumbing to ‘disinformation’ is sheer bullying. Our key to freedom and upholding democracy is knowledge, action, and civic involvement.”

I encourage my constituents to keep asking critical questions. We owe it to ourselves and future generations.

Emancipation Day

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to mark the first reading of my private member's motion, Motion No. 36, calling for the designation of August 1 as emancipation day in Canada. Our motion calls for the House to recognize the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade on August 1, 1834. As well, the motion aims to recognize the significance that August 1 holds as a historic celebration of freedom among Black Canadians.

I want to acknowledge the support the motion has received from Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard, the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer and the members of the all-party Parliamentary Black Caucus. I want to commend the valuable insights I received from community voices like Rosemary Sadlier from the Royal Commonwealth Society, the Ontario Black History Society and the Canadian Association of Social Workers.

In closing, I call upon colleagues in the House to vote in favour of designating August 1 of every year emancipation day throughout our wonderful nation.