Debates of Dec. 8th, 2020

Criminal Code

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Sturgeon River—Parkland for his wonderful speech. It reflected compassion, but it also reflected a high respect for human life.

Unfortunately, a lot of us here in the House lament the fact that we can no longer critically debate. We cannot establish our views based on the merits of the arguments. Today, we saw that in question period, when those who oppose this legislation were referred to as religious fanatics.

I would ask my colleague this. Does he agree that the vilification and disparagement of those who do not support the Liberal government's efforts to expand assisted suicide is inappropriate?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his wisdom on this issue. As the member from the NDP who spoke previously said, it is very unhelpful to this debate to be casting aspersions and singling out certain groups of people to question their motivations. I know people who come from a faith background and a faith perspective on this issue, on both sides of the issue, and they are honourable people who want to do what they feel is right.

It is very demeaning to cast all opposition to this bill into a single bucket, when we have so many people from disability communities, indigenous communities and other vulnerable communities raising the alarm about this bill. It is a cheap shot that undermines the quality of this debate and our ability, as legislators, to come here and bring the views of our constituents. That is what democracy is all about, which is an opportunity to share our perspective and shape the way our country is going. That is incredibly important.

The member is right that that seems to be decaying. We must put a stop to it and reverse it as soon as possible. Our country will suffer when one side is being told it cannot participate in debate.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this debate. In light of what was just said, I point out the member across the way depicted the Attorney General as having ignored the pleas of the disability community. Does he honestly think that the Attorney General is ignoring the pleas of the disability community?

All of us on this side, and hopefully all on the opposite side, have the best interest of Canadians at heart. This is a difficult and complex issue. We understand that, and it is good we are having this debate.

Does the member actually think the Attorney General has ignored the pleas of the disability community?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is a saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The member does not have to take it from me believing the Attorney General is ignoring the pleas of disabled Canadians. He can take it from them. They have been saying it at committee. I just read it on CBC today that he is in a showdown with disabled and vulnerable communities, as they are calling for this legislation to be halted.

If the minister is indeed listening to the pleas of the disabled community, why has the committee majority rejected any of the recommendations put forward by the disabled and vulnerable communities? Why are they so intransigent in their fight against any effort from these communities to shape this legislation in a way that would protect their lives and protect their dignity?

It is really up to the government to show and demonstrate it is listening to the pleas, because I have seen absolutely no evidence that the Attorney General has done so.

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

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Housing; the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Air Transportation; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Ethics.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House again this afternoon and speak to a bill that I believe deserves long and serious consideration. The ramifications of this bill will last a very long time, beyond any one Parliament or group of parliamentarians. Hence, it would be behoove this Parliament to make sure that we spend adequate time reflecting on this bill and making sure we get it right. As I have said before, and I believe it bears repeating, especially as we debate this bill, the character of a nation is reflected in how it treats its most vulnerable citizens.

There is an ancient writing from the Book of Psalms that many members would be familiar with. It has been utilized all over the world and has been heard for centuries and generations. Psalm 23 simply states, “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for [you are] with me”.

In one of my previous roles, as a minister, I had the privilege of walking with individuals and families as they traversed that valley of the shadow of death. I have both witnessed and experienced personally what it means to be affected by the passing of a loved one, as I am sure many, if not all, in this chamber have as well.

This bill brings with it great responsibility. It literally deals with matters pertaining to life and death, and decisions of absolute and complete finality. I believe it would behoove this House to take adequate time to reflect upon the powerful testimonies we have heard at committee. Testimonies such as Mr. Roger Foley's, which shares his story of being denied the health services he requested and being pressured, instead, to pursue a medically assisted death. He is now fighting for others to not be put in the same situation he was, and he supports our amendments to the bill.

Krista Carr also gave testimony at committee. She is from Inclusion Canada and works with persons with disabilities. She stated at committee that the worst fears of those living with disabilities are being realized by BillC-7. The government's own Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion has stated that MAID should not be brought up by doctors to the disabled.

Indigenous leaders, including the former attorney general and minister of justice for Canada, have also raised serious concerns over this bill and its inadequate safeguards. Medical practitioners have raised concerns pertaining to conscience rights as they pertain to medical assistance in dying.

In light of all these concerns that have been brought to the table, and all of these powerful testimonies that we have been able to hear, we can see that Canadians from across the country are raising the alarm bells and encouraging us parliamentarians to get this right because of the finality that this decision entails.

What would be wrong for us to pause and adequately reflect about such serious matters, and take the time to ensure that adequate safeguards are built in so that the concerns of the most vulnerable people among us are adequately addressed? No one could deny that those concerns have not been expressed with fervency and urgency. At this point, we as parliamentarians should take the time to reflect and ask, what steps are we taking to make sure those concerns are being addressed in this legislation?

In my time as a pastor, I got to know a lady who was suffering greatly with a disease that had caused her to become incapacitated, in many ways. She could not walk. She could not even lift her arms to feed herself as the disease progressed. Her health was deteriorating. Her emotional stability was already ravaged by having gone through the loss of her husband overseas.

I remember visiting her in the hospital and at that time watching as her mother had to feed her with a spoon. It was almost a pablum-based type of nourishment because she was slowly losing her ability to chew food. Her circumstances were overwhelming. While visiting and being in the hospital with her and her mom at this time, we could not leave without being affected by what we saw.

I must say that our local, faith and church communities responded and did everything they could to provide encouragement, visits and make sure adequate food and support was provided where possible. She had been through so much she even had a hard time expressing everything she was going through. I remember one day when it did not appear she had all that long to be with us, I went to visit her in the hospital and witnessed her taking the nourishment from her mom. I remember leaving the hospital room shaken and wishing there was a better way for this lady.

I am glad to report to members that she had an amazing turnaround. Her story did not end where we thought it was going to end. Though her pathway up to that point had been marked with a lot of suffering, discomfort and terrible loss, I am glad to say that over 12 years later this woman has fully recovered, is married again, enjoying life and doing well.

One would ask what that has to do with what we are talking about. It has a whole lot to do with it. I believe there are many other Canadians who have walked through that valley of the shadow of death who wondered if their life was still worth living and if they could make it to the other side. Because of the supports, care and love from the friends, family and community members who stood by them in that most difficult of circumstances, they were able to get through that valley and get to the other side.

How many other Canadians in terrible circumstances at the moment, who are feeling overwhelmed by what they are facing, would benefit from having people walk with them through that valley? It may be all they need to get to the other side. It may not be the case for everyone, but I know it was for that lady. I am so glad it was the case for her. It made all the difference in the world to know that others kept believing when she had lost the ability to believe herself. Now, after getting to the other side, she serves as an inspiration for many others.

I want to conclude with this. Though the valley of the shadow of death casts a very long and dark shadow for those going through it and for their families, as a member here who has lost a loved one, I can attest that we have an obligation as parliamentarians to pause and ensure that every safeguard is in place, so that when people are walking through that valley, they do not make a decision while still in the darkness, when they are near the end of that valley.

The last part of the writing I shared earlier is “for [you are] with me”. I think the questions every parliamentarian needs to ask themselves are these: Are we going to be there for all Canadians who are in the midst of the valley of the shadow of death? Are we going to be with them by ensuring every safeguard is in place and the supports necessary to carry on are amply supplied?

[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 like to think that I would be there. I went through a personal experience with my father, where his dying days were very difficult because of the amount of severe pain he was experiencing. I am ever so grateful I was with him at his time of passing. The medicine ultimately alleviated the pain, but some health care professionals indicated to me that it likely might have shortened his lifespan also.

I understand the importance of the difference between an assisted death and assisting someone with suicide. My father was a very proud man and I believe in my heart that he died with dignity, and in the way in which he wanted to pass.

I understand how important this legislation is and would remind members this is a debate that has been taking place for many years. Even after we deal with this legislation, the debate will continue, because we all recognize, no matter where we fall on the issue, the importance of making sure we get it right. I suspect we will continue to do so in the form of committees. However, we do have some deadlines that need to be and should be addressed. Could the member provide his thoughts on that, or on my comments, whichever he feels comfortable with?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member sharing his personal story of walking through the valley with his dad. I can relate, having had a 34-year-old brother who had cancer and suffered quite tremendously toward the end. I remember being there and seeing it. Yes, medication played a role in alleviating his pain and helping with his suffering, but ultimately we walked through that valley. With all of the treatments and all of the things that we went through, some of it was not easy at all to witness, but I will say I was very thankful to have every moment I had with my brother. I was extremely thankful for how others came through during that time and the people in the community who rose to the occasion, from all walks of life.

I think sometimes that in our rush to alleviate suffering, which we all want to do, naturally, perhaps we miss the lessons and virtues that only suffering can bring in life. The ancient saying is that there is more to be learned in the house of mourning than in any other house. The lessons we learn from people who have gone through tragedy, hardship or painful circumstances help all of us understand what matters most.

One of the greatest lessons I learned in that time was that every bit of life we have is to be cherished. I am so thankful for that. The things that are said in those moments—

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

I will have to interrupt for one last question from the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member brought up the case of Roger Foley and as he concluded his speech, he talked about the need to ensure that there are adequate safeguards in place. I was wondering, having regard for the case of Roger Foley, if the member could provide his thoughts on the removal of a key safeguard in this bill, which is to provide for two independent witnesses. This legislation would remove that and provide that persons attending to the care of someone requesting medical assistance in dying can constitute a witness.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to any safeguards being removed, to me it poses a great threat. We need to provide adequate safeguards for everyone traversing the valley of the shadow of death—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again to speak to Bill C-7, the government's medical assistance in dying legislation. I do acknowledge that this is an incredibly complex subject matter for which there are many diverse views.

With that said, the way in which the government and the Attorney General have handled the legislation is a lesson in what not to do, having regard for the gravity of the legislation. I say that having full respect for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. I believe he is a sincere and intelligent individual who is compassionate and does want to do what he believes to be right.

That said, when the Minister of Justice spoke in the House at second reading, he indicated that there were widespread consultations and that out of those consultations there was a consensus. Neither is true.

The consultations that the minister spoke about were largely over the course of one month in January of this year. They were online consultations that excluded vulnerable segments of the population, including persons with mobility, cognitive or visual impairments, persons without access to the Internet and persons living in remote and northern communities. Their voices were not heard or were not heard as easily as a result of the online consultation process that started and ended within roughly a period of one month.

Not only that, but the consultations were said to have had a predetermined outcome. In other words, the minister had an idea of the legislation that he sought to craft and he used the process as a way of getting the answers that he had hoped to receive.

Do not take my word for that. Take the words of the persons who were involved in the consultation process, including Heidi Janz of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, or Dr. Catherine Frazee, the former chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and a leading advocate for persons with disabilities. They said that the consultations were predetermined when they appeared before the justice committee.

What about the consensus that supposedly arose out of these so-called extensive consultations that simply were not so? We know that out of those consultations just about every national disability rights organization opposes this bill. As we speak, they are calling on the minister and the government to put this bill on pause. We know that more than 1,100 physicians have penned a letter expressing their opposition. Concerns were expressed by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities.

Just about every witness, if not every witness other than the minister himself, who appeared before the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee that held hearings the last couple of weeks, panned the bill. No one, it seems, is happy with the bill. So much for the minister's assertion at second reading in the House that there was a consensus. There was no consensus, because there was no meaningful consultation, and there was a predetermined result that has resulted in legislation that just about everyone in one way, shape or form has been highly critical of.

I heard over the course of the debate members of the government and other parties talk about this issue in a context as if there were no risks, “Get out of the way, let the patients make their choice and throw out safeguards, because otherwise one is infringing on individual autonomy.” The Supreme Court of Canada recognized in Carter that “there are risks, to be sure”, at paragraph 105 of the Carter decision, and the court talked about how those risks can be “'very substantially minimized through a carefully-designed system' that imposes strict limits that are scrupulously monitored and enforced”. That is what the Supreme Court of Canada said.

When we talk about those risks, one need look no further than the case of Roger Foley, who is severely disabled, requires 24-hour care and is in a hospital facility in London, Ontario. I will read what he said about his experience, because it really is quite shocking. When he came before the justice committee, he talked about what can happen when there are insufficient safeguards, and we are talking about safeguards that are in Bill C-14 which are now being further removed by Bill C-7. He said:

I have been coerced into assisted death by abuse, neglect, lack of care and threats. For example, at a time when I was advocating for assistance to live and for self-directed home care, the hospital ethicist and nurses were trying to coerce me into an assisted death by threatening to charge me $1,800 per day or force-discharge me without the care I needed to live. I felt pressured by these staff raising assisted dying rather than relieving my suffering with dignified and compassionate care.

In the face of that, we put forward an amendment to say that this must patient-initiated. The minister responsible for disability inclusion said that she had grave concerns about what happened to Roger Foley, and she has heard about this regularly. Yet, even in the face of that evidence, the government rejected that very common-sense amendment, rejected other amendments and instead moved recklessly ahead. We are now in this untenable situation where the most vulnerable persons in our society could be put at risk. It really is unfortunate that it has panned out this way. I can only hope that the Senate will bring forward substantive amendments to this deeply flawed legislation.

[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, the member looks to the government and accuses it of defeating Conservative amendments. I suspect that, if the member were to reflect on what took place in committee, he would likely find that, in a minority situation, it is not just the Liberal Party that would carry the vote in a committee. The member knows this full well.

The Conservatives were unable to convince enough members of the committee to support the Conservative amendments. I suspect that the current legislation, as it is, reflects the overall thinking, dating back to 2015, from the Carter decision to the superior court decision in Quebec, which has in essence put forward the deadline of December 18.

With respect to other members of his caucus, one in particular said that the Government of Canada has two options, going to the Quebec to say that we need an extension or going to the Supreme Court. Does the hon. member share that opinion, and could he expand on it?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, very simply, I do share that opinion. I would further add that it should never have come to this, because the appropriate course of action for the Attorney General to have taken was to appeal the Truchon decision in the first place. Had the minister done so, at the very least, we would not be in this position of trying to rush through legislation on the eve of the stay of the declaration on constitutional invalidity expiring.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know the Conservatives have expressed a lot of concern about people who are making money during the pandemic who should not be making money during the pandemic. I know they are not talking about the 20 billionaires who made $38 billion in the first six months of this pandemic.

The Conservatives are talking about people who got the CERB who do not deserve the CERB. In the last week, I have had a number of constituents, people with disabilities, contact my office because they are getting letters from the CRA saying that they need to pay back the $14,000 they received from the CERB. These are people who have disabilities and who are self-employed and use that income to pay their rent and utilities and to help with expenses. They did not understand the difference between the gross and the net amounts in the application process. People on disability benefits here in British Columbia can earn $12,000 a year before their disability starts getting clawed back, dollar for dollar.

Would the hon. member like to see more compassion on this issue of taking care of people with disabilities now, while they are alive, trying to survive? What does the member think should be done?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, what I would hope is that the concerns expressed by the disability community would be heard as we debate this important piece of legislation.

Unfortunately, those voices were not heard by the Attorney General. They were not heard by Liberal MPs. They were heard by my friend from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, who did bring forward some important amendments at the committee, which we supported and which we thought moved in the right direction to provide greater certainty to protect vulnerable persons. However, those amendments were rejected by the Liberals across the way.

I hope, in the face of all of that, the Senate will do better than the process we have had in the House.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I knew entering federal politics would mean participating in many very important debates in the House, but speaking on matters of life and death brings that to a whole new level. As someone who comes from a small city in northern Saskatchewan and now has the privilege of representing the entire northern 52% of Saskatchewan, I hope to bring somewhat of a unique perspective to this debate.

As we stand here in Ottawa and debate this legislation, there are several communities in my riding dealing with very high suicide rates. Makwa Sahgaiehcan First Nation, a community of about a thousand people, has over 100 community members currently on suicide watch.

There are long-term care home and palliative care shortages across the country, but this is even more true in northern and remote communities. We need to consider what message we, as legislators, are sending to these vulnerable communities when we go way beyond the Supreme Court of Canada's Carter decision by removing safeguards that would protect Canada's most vulnerable.

The government is now seeking to play an active role rather than a passive role in the end of Canadians' lives. I find this extremely troubling and implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to allow the necessary time to consider the truly long-term ramifications of the legislation and to listen to all the voices speaking out on it. This does not need to be done with unnecessary hurry.

There are two main topics I want to address when it comes to Bill C-7. Number one is the impact passing the legislation will have on indigenous communities, and number two is the importance of safeguards to protect Canada's most vulnerable.

I do not stand here pretending for one moment to speak on behalf of indigenous people in Canada. However, over my lifetime I have developed relationships with many first nations and Métis people in northern Saskatchewan and over the year I have discussed this issue of assisted dying with many of them. There is a great worry among the leadership of these nations that legitimizing suicide in our culture will have grave impacts on their younger generations as well as those who are nearing the end of their lives.

These concerns were actually raised during debate in the last Parliament by Liberal MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette during his speech on what was then Bill C-14. He said:

In the indigenous world view, everything is interconnected. It is holistic, meaning that when a change is made in one place, the impact will be felt elsewhere, and the two cannot be separated. In the western world view, often we compartmentalize things. We believe that we can play, that we can control certain situations, that we can effect change here and not see change in other places. Above all, we have come to believe ourselves able to predict and control all, to control the future. This does not mean, though, that we should not take action.

The impact of this bill on people in Toronto may be very different than on the people in Nunavik or Attawapiskat. Our role as parliamentarians is to place ourselves in the moccasins of others, to place ourselves outside of our own experiences, to see the world through another cosmology and other world view, and to see the impact that our decisions may have on others.

We are making profound changes in concepts surrounding life, which cannot be undone in the future. In the indigenous tradition and philosophy, we are required to think seven generations into the future. If I am wrong and there is no connection between Attawapiskat and physician-assisted dying or suicide, if the average person does not see a connection and communities do not see a greater stress, then I will gladly say I was wrong; but if there is an impact, which is caused by the valorization of suicide, then what?

Mr. Ouellette then goes on to share a very personal and difficult story of hardship he and his siblings faced as young children, which led him to nearly take his own life. He goes on to say:

If in my life I had seen, or I had known, that my grandmother had somehow used physician-assisted dying or physician-assisted suicide, or others in my family had completed the irreparable act, then it would have made it much more difficult for me to continue.

We might not think the impact will be there, but we do not know. We assume we know these things. We are deciding the future of a few for the end of a few.

Speaking to CBC during the debate on Bill C-14, Senator Murray Sinclair shared similar views. He said:

From the indigenous perspective, ending one’s own life was not encouraged, in fact it was discouraged and there are teachings in my community, Ojibwa teachings, around whether or not you will be able to travel to the spirit world in the proper way or a ceremony could be done for you if you make the decision to end your life without good reason.

In speaking to his colleagues in the Senate, Senator Sinclair, speaking about younger people, said:

It will not take much for a young, vulnerable person to believe that their situation is intolerable to them and, therefore, we need to ensure the message we send to the Canadian public with this legislation is that this is not a right that should be easily exercised or that we are embracing.

First nations people in northern Saskatchewan, Mr. Ouellette from Manitoba and Senator Murray Sinclair are not alone. Tyler White, chief executive officer for the Siksika Health Services, as well as Dr. Thomas Fung, a lead physician of the same nation, are sounding alarms in response to the legislation. During an interview with CTV, Mr. White said, “The expansion of MAID sends a contradictory message to our peoples that some individuals should receive suicide prevention, while others suicide assistance.”

In a letter shared with my office, Mr. White and Dr. Fung told the story of a patient who suffers from a lung disease that causes him to become easily short of breath, even when doing simple household tasks. This patient uses a walker but cannot walk for more than a couple of minutes without gasping for breath. While the man's condition is incurable, he could certainly have an improved quality of life if he had access to funding to support his home oxygen, but he was just out of the range of being approved for funding. Dr. Fung concluded by writing that under Bill C-7, this patient would have qualified for assisted death when it should be clear to all that there are other ways to relieve this man's suffering and improve his quality of life. Patients like Dr. Fung's deserve better.

In a country as developed and resourceful as Canada, we cannot allow ourselves to abandon people like this. Our health care system is the pride of many Canadians, but that is because of universality of access to life-saving treatments, not the universal admissibility to a physician-administered death.

I want to talk for a minute about the safeguards for vulnerable Canadians and how the legislation would fail to provide them. I am not a lawyer, but thankfully the Leader of the Opposition is. We are probably all glad that is the case, that I am not the lawyer. I was glad to be in the House during this speech on Bill C-7 this morning.

Leaning on his legal expertise, allow me to repeat some of what he said regarding previous litigation surrounding assisted death, because it struck me as very important. He said, “All of them talked about the role of the state in protecting the decisionally vulnerable, as they were called, people who could be pushed into end-of-life treatment because they felt they were a burden. This has been talked about since the 1990s, and this Attorney General is removing the safeguards from our regime. Every ounce of case law on the issue of assisted dying, euthanasia or assisted suicide talks about protecting those vulnerable.”

Speaking of protecting the vulnerable, the leader also said, “All major disability groups in Canada agree with the compassionate and reasonable position being presented by my Conservative colleagues. I am very proud of the advocacy we have shown. We have also been joined by legal scholars, indigenous leaders and people working with people with mental health issues.” I wholeheartedly echo the comments made by my hon. friend this morning and repeat the need for the government to step back from its repealing of the provisions that would ensure a 10-day waiting period, as well as two witnesses.

As a matter of fact, regarding the 10-day waiting period, a senior employee of the AFN shared on Twitter recently, “This ten day period literally saved a member of family’s life. MAID must be accessible but also account for clear and thoughtful consent. The Liberals should rethink this.”

In closing, I want to completely acknowledge that both sides of this debate are coming from a point of view of compassion. I understand that the government has approached the drafting of the legislation in good faith, but the reality is that it has fallen short of its duty to Canadians. That is why I will be voting against this dangerous bill and I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will reconsider their support for it as well.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about this being a life and death issue. Oftentimes, when we sit in this place, we look to these issues with the degree of magnitude that they deserve.

As the bill went through committee, there were some challenges. I know some reasonable amendments were put forward by the Conservative caucus. I am wondering if the member could speak to those reasonable amendments and just how important they are to determining this piece of legislation.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I agree that some reasonable amendments were proposed, and we would like to see the 10-day reflection period I talked about put back. I would like to share a really personal story about this, which I think will emphasize that point to the House.

Back in 2014, in my small city in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, a young lady graduated from high school, a tremendous athlete. She had just finished her nursing degree, and I think one Tuesday night she was in a terrible car accident and ended up a paraplegic. This was a family friend of mine, and I had the privilege, or maybe the horror, of being in the hospital with her family that night and in the following days. I can guarantee the House that this young lady would have chosen death over life at that point if she had had that opportunity.

Now this young lady, several years later, is a Paralympic athlete. She has gotten back to doing incredible things with her life. She has been all over the world for athletics. I could talk for a long time about this, but I am going to say something that came from her dad. He said, “One of the really cool things we are slowly catching is the members of this special group of people don’t see themselves constrained in any way.” People with disabilities do not see this when they get past the hurdle of the original burden, which, in this case, was this young lady's accident.

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

Madam Speaker, we know that physicians are very concerned about conscience protections for medical practitioners. Right from the beginning, with Bill C-14, many stressed that this should be part of Bill C-7, yet the Liberal government has totally ignored it and punted it down to the provinces. I believe it is impacting palliative care and impacting people's perspectives of serving in the medical profession. I would just like some comments from the member in that regard.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I fully agree. Probably the second most common concern I have heard about from people is conscience rights. I have talked to people who believe that is a huge issue. They do not believe that their personal belief system, faith or life journeys should be impacted by some imposition of government.

I want to share one other quick comment here. In the debate on this in the last Parliament, the former attorney general and justice minister commented about preventing the normalization of suicide to protect vulnerable person who are disproportionately at risk of inducement to suicide. She spoke of that repeatedly. This is from a CTV article:

In defending it before the Senate, [the former justice minister] warned that expanding the eligibility criteria to include anyone who is suffering intolerably would “send the wrong message that society feels it is appropriate to address suffering in life by choosing death. This message may encourage some who are in crisis and already considering suicide to act.”

I really do not think we should be putting our medical professionals in that place.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I feel honoured tonight to be speaking to Bill C-7 given the many great speeches by my Conservative colleagues, who are concerned about our citizens and especially those in the disability and senior communities.

I speak today deeply concerned about Bill C-7 and the changes being proposed in the legislation. I know this is an emotional issue for everyone, and it is an important discussion we are having this evening. Any legislation that is introduced in Parliament requires a thorough review, but this is especially true for bills that are literally matters of life and death.

It is my firm belief that the federal government should have appealed to the Supreme Court to get certainty on the framework within which Parliament can legislate. Unfortunately, that did not happen, so here we are with a rushed bill that puts the lives of our most vulnerable at risk.

Make no mistake: As a Christian I am firmly against the use of medically assisted dying. That said, I understand that the courts have made a ruling and the legislation is required. However, we must ensure that this type of legislation includes safeguards for the most vulnerable in our society and for the conscience rights of physicians and health professionals.

That is why we Conservatives introduced a number of reasonable amendments to reinstate protections that the Liberal government has simply removed, which is troubling. These include reinstating a 10-day reflection period when death is reasonably foreseeable, extending the reflection period when death is not reasonably foreseeable, protecting vulnerable patients by requiring that the patient be the one who first requests information on medical assistance in dying and protecting the conscience rights of health care professionals.

It is unfortunate that these amendments have been rejected by the government. I am deeply concerned that this legislation will allow assisted death for Canadians who are not dying by removing the requirement that a person's death must be reasonably foreseeable for them to be eligible for assisted suicide and euthanasia.

My dad is 86 and my mom is 76, and as the son of two elderly Canadians, I am very concerned about what this would mean for our nation's seniors and the positions they may be put in when trying to access health care. Will they be placed in a position where they will have to decide between care and ending their lives because of outside pressure? As the bill expands medically assisted dying further, there is a risk that palliative care will suffer and, as a result, patients will view medically assisted dying as a better option.

I know Canadians share my concerns. It must be said that every national disability organization in Canada opposes this legislation. Krista Carr, executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada, said at committee, “Bill C-7 is our worst nightmare.” These organizations caution that removing the end of life requirement discriminates against those who are disabled and puts their lives at even greater risk. Ms. Carr notes:

The end-of-life requirement was the only safeguard whereby disability was not the sole criterion. By having a disability itself under Bill C-7 as the justification for the termination of life, the very essence of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be shattered. Discrimination on the basis of disability would once again be entrenched in Canadian law.

It is shameful that in the Liberal government's rush to pass the bill before Christmas, it continues to neglect to address legitimate concerns being raised by persons with disabilities.

I am also deeply concerned about the limited protections for the conscience rights of our medical professionals. While some doctors and health care workers may have been comfortable with medically assisted dying under Bill C-14, the continued expansion may cause them to rethink their participation.

Others who have always been against medically assisted dying are already feeling the pressure to go against what they believe. As the Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia said in a news release just last March, “The pressure has been intense for many physicians, especially amongst palliative specialists, some leaving their profession even before this latest development. Descriptions were made of toxic practice environments and fear of discipline by medical regulators.”

Members of the justice committee have heard first-hand from disability advocates vehemently opposed to Bill C-7 and its rapid expansion of medical assistance in dying. They argue it amounts to a deadly form of discrimination, making it easier for persons with disabilities to die than live. It is shameful.

Health care professionals have also spoken out, concerned not only about their conscience rights but also about the speed at which the government is trying to pass Bill C-7. To quote Adam Taylor about the lack of consultation on this legislation, “As an emergency and family doctor, I know the importance of consultation, along with the day to day experiences and sufferings of Canadians which cannot be ignored. I'm terrifically concerned about this.” Even so, here we are, and the Liberals are continuing to push through the bill, ignoring concerns of those who would be directly affected by these changes. Again, it is shameful.

As the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada said in its submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we must carefully consider the impact of Bill C-7 and the concerns being raised by many Canadians, particularly Canadians with disabilities. The legislation, not to mention the human lives the bill would negatively affect, is too important to be rushed.

Emancipation Day

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

moved:

That the House recognize that: (a) the British Parliament abolished slavery in the British Empire as of August 1, 1834; (b) slavery existed in British North America prior to its abolition in 1834; (c) abolitionists and others who struggled against slavery, including those who arrived in Upper and Lower Canada by the Underground Railroad, have historically celebrated August 1 as Emancipation Day; (d) the Government of Canada announced on January 30, 2018, that it would officially recognize the United Nations International Decade for People of African Descent to highlight the important contributions that people of African descent have made to Canadian society, and to provide a platform for confronting anti-Black racism; and (e) the heritage of Canada’s people of African descent and the contributions they have made and continue to make to Canada; and that, in the opinion of the House, the government should designate August 1 of every year as “Emancipation Day” in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to my motion, Motion No. 36, which would have the House formerly recognize August 1 as emancipation day and in turn maintain our government's commitment to highlight the contributions people of African descent have made to Canadian society and continue to combat anti-Black racism today. This motion builds on the incredible work done by Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard with Bill S-255 in the last session of Parliament.

Motion No. 36 on emancipation day, when passed, would have Parliament officially recognize the abolition of slavery on August 1, 1834, in the British empire, including British North America, what we know as present day Canada; the role of British colonies, including our nation, in participating in the transatlantic slave trade and the abolitionists who laid the ground work for change and defied the norms of the time; the history of emancipation day, including the many untold stories and unsung achievements of Black Canadians in Canadian society; and address anti-Black racism in the context of the United Nations International Decade for People of African Descent and for the purpose of achieving our goal of a just, inclusive and equal society.

In 1807, the British Parliament voted to end the transatlantic slave trade. On August 1, 1834, chattel slavery was abolished across the British empire and all its commonwealth territories, including Canada. This was a landmark victory for Black communities across the British empire and especially for the Black Canadians who organized, rallied and fought for this legislation. The day was one of celebration among Black Canadians who expressed their joy at being able to live freely and independently, though it also stood as an important occasion to reflect on the struggle it took to achieve that freedom.

Emancipation day allows for Canadians of African and Caribbean descent to connect through shared experiences and gives an opportunity to pass on the stories of their enslaved ancestors, whose names and experiences would otherwise not be recounted or honoured in any history book of that time.

World recognition of emancipation day is at the heart of this motion and one of the primary pillars in education and awareness that should be highlighted. This summer, in the weeks leading up to emancipation day, I had the opportunity to consult with various advocacy groups regarding this motion. I want to highlight an emancipation day panel I attended with notable Black scholars in Canada, including the Hon. Jean Augustine, the first female Black Canadian member of Parliament.

One of the key highlights I took from this event was the importance of education. The primary purpose of this motion is to continue to educate our community on Canada's history and culture as well as shed light on part of our history that we have not always acknowledged. It also presents us with a unique opportunity to learn about important Canadian Black historical figures, community leaders and trailblazers.

The history of emancipation day goes beyond the abolition of the slave trade. It should highlight the work of numerous Black scholars, activists and change-makers. We specifically want to acknowledge historic events like the underground railroad, where tens of thousands of African Canadians and African Americans bravely escaped slavery in the south and sought refuge in Canada from 1850 to 1860. We want to recognize the influential Black Canadian abolitionists and cultural leaders like Mary Ann Shadd, the first female newspaper publisher in Canada and first Black female publisher in North America.

Ms. Shad founded and ran The Provincial Freeman from 1853 to 1860 and was a fierce anti-slavery activist. She used her platform to showcase Black culture and explored political and human rights issues, such as abolition, women's rights and the right to vote. She later went on to establish a non-segregated school in the town of Windsor.

I should recognize Viola Desmond, a Nova Scotia businesswoman who was arrested in 1946 for sitting in the whites-only section of a theatre. She was later charged with tax fraud. This incident became a catalyst for change as she refused to succumb to the racist policies of her time. Her case sparked a civil rights movement in Nova Scotia and inspired a generation of Black Nova Scotians and Canadians to fight for justice and human rights.

We must also acknowledge the Black Canadians who played a pivotal role in Canada's effort during World War I. Despite facing discrimination and barriers to enter into the armed forces, a significant group of Black men dedicated themselves to the war effort and served in multiple combat and support roles.

For example, we should honour the No. 2 Construction Battalion, an all-Black military unit that dug trenches, diffused land mines, stocked ammunition and removed wounded soldiers from the battlefield. The contribution of the No. 2 Battalion was not recognized until much later in the war.

In the words of Senator Bernard, “Emancipation Day served as an instrument to pass on the history and the memory of those who went before them and as a beacon for taking up the responsibility to carry on from where their ancestors left off.”

Since immigrating to Canada, I have been lucky to live in many diverse and multicultural ridings like Richmond Hill. However, I have seen and experienced the effects of racism, prejudice and discrimination in my daily life. I know that I can never know the struggle of Black Canadians in our society today, but it is our duty as allies to emphasize and to continue to educate ourselves on issues that continue to impact Black communities across the world and in our country of Canada.

Throughout the month of July, my office created a social media campaign entitled “We Recognize”. This online campaign highlighted the stories of Black Canadians throughout history who have made important contributions to our society; Canadians whose stories were not told in our history books or in our school classrooms.

My hope is that this motion will be the first step in acknowledging the gaps in our education system. It can encourage a greater focus on Black history and the inclusion of Black Canadian stories in history and social studies classes.

Emancipation day is a time for all Canadians to look inward and unlearn the biases and behaviours associated with the history of slavery that have resulted in the under-representation of Black Canadians in history books, school curriculums, elected positions and public service. It also serves as an opportunity for us to dismantle the remnants of institutionalized racism, discrimination and the overrepresentation of Black Canadians in correctional facilities.

Recognizing emancipation day gives Canadians the opportunity to confront this reality and to advocate for greater diversity, inclusion and opportunity.

I want to acknowledge the support that this motion has received from my colleague, Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard. Senator Bernard's guidance has been essential in allowing me to approach this motion with the care and nuance it required. Senator Bernard has been advocating extensively for this cause and continues to be a fierce advocate for Black communities across our country.

I also want to thank the member for Hull—Aylmer, the chair of the parliamentary Black caucus, and the members of the all-party parliamentary Black caucus for their support with this cause.

I want to commend the valuable insight from community voices, like Rosemary Sadlier from the Royal Commonwealth Society, the Ontario Black History Society and the Canadian Association of Social Workers. Their guidance and assistance were key to bringing visibility to this issue.

In honour of emancipation day and the United Nations International Decade for People of African Descent, I am calling on all Canadians to come together to confront our nation's history with racism as well as emancipation, so we can achieve better outcomes and representation for people who are marginalized, a label which disproportionately includes Black Canadians as well as first nations, Métis and Inuit people.

As for myself, I continue to advocate for a more inclusive, culturally aware and diverse society in which emancipation day and ancestry are represented and embodied in our schools and our institutions.

It is my sincere hope that all Canadians, especially the members of the House, will join me in exploring our nation's history and next August take part in their communities' emancipation day celebration. I ask members to please support Motion No. 36.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what a historic moment it is. I thank the hon. member for Richmond Hill for lifting up the important work of the always honourable Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard.

We heard in his remarks that this is indeed a first step. It is a symbolic one, but a first step in dismantling anti-Black racism. What would the hon. member prioritize, with the opportunity that his government has, on second steps in order to dismantle anti-Black racism?