Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of emotion that I rise again in the House to speak to this extremely sensitive issue, medical assistance in dying.
In this speech I will highlight the parliamentary and judicial reality. As the House leader of the official opposition, I have a thing or two to say about that. In fact, I have quite a few things to say about that. I will talk about the reasons why we are gathered today to talk about Bill C-7 at third reading stage. I will also address the substance of the issue, that is, my position and that of my colleagues.
Before I begin, I would like to make certain things clear: this is a topic that leaves no room for partisanship. On this file there are no good guys or bad guys, good positions or bad positions, good votes or bad votes. There are just positions that we are comfortable with, that we believe in and are prepared to defend personally as individuals. This topic may be terribly divisive, just as it may be a golden opportunity to have an intelligent conversation that is above all respectful of differing opinions.
As you well know, Madam Speaker, I do really enjoy political battles. I do not hate the arguments and the counter-arguments. On the contrary, it is part of politics. However, there are issues that do not lend themselves to this.
As far as I am concerned, when we talk about assisted dying situations, the issue is not a partisan one. There are no bad guys and good guys. There are no good votes or bad votes. There are only votes and positions in which we are comfortable. Where we stand firm on that is being respectful to our counterparts. This is the issue, and this is why I want to address it. While sometimes, the House knows, I like to be a little aggressive in my comments, in this case I will try to do my best to be modest, because I want to be respectful to each and every position.
Bill C-7 responds to a decision of the Quebec Superior Court. However, this is not the first time that medical assistance in dying has been addressed.
Members will recall that the province of Quebec was the first to begin working on this issue, which led to the passage of a law on medical assistance in dying. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I know what I am talking about because I was a member of the National Assembly of Quebec. In passing, I was elected for the first time 12 years ago on this day. As a provincial representative, I worked for six years on this sensitive issue under three ministers and three different governments.
I want to be clear. This issue can be dealt with in a non-partisan way, and the proof is that three premiers—Premier Charest, Premier Marois and Premier Couillard—in two different political parties led the parliamentary work that resulted in the adoption of the first provincial law on medical assistance in dying in Canada. I would like to point out that this was done under the leadership of a premier who was a physician, Dr. Philippe Couillard. I was there.
Then came the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Carter, again, on medical assistance in dying. The federal government had to decide how to define and set the federal criteria for medical assistance in dying. Prime minister Stephen Harper, recognizing that the federal government was on the verge of an election campaign, rightly decided, with the support of the other political parties, not to address this issue. That was the right thing to do.
As I said earlier, this issue is not a partisan one. That is why former prime minister Harper did the right thing and put it aside during the campaign in 2015. Then the new government elected, which could have been Conservative, NDP or Liberal, would table a new bill. I have been part of that discussion. I have been part of that committee.
The government was well advised to create a cross-party and, more importantly, joint parliamentary committee, which had both senators and members of Parliament as members.
I had the honour of sitting on that committee, at the request of my then leader, the Hon. Rosa Ambrose. I had the privilege of having very interesting and fascinating conversations with Canadians across the country who had different points of view. We came to a consensus in the form of Bill C-14. I want to be clear about the use of “consensus”, because the way democracy works, and this is a good thing, means that some people are in favour while others are against.
Bill C-14 was passed in the House of Commons five years ago. This bill included a clause that could be considered a sunset clause, since it required that parliamentarians review the legislation.
It was inevitable that this issue would end up before the courts, and it did. A Quebec Superior Court judge issued a decision in Truchon v. Attorney General of Canada on September 11, 2019.
Through the Minister of Justice, the federal government immediately reviewed the decision, decided to hold an online consultation and introduced a bill in the House of Commons in February. As we see it, that was the first major mistake. I have nothing against the judge or the Quebec Superior Court. Every court has its own responsibilities and makes its own decisions. The judge was appointed to that court in 2017, which was a good thing, and she was appointed to the Court of Appeal on November 20, which was a very good thing.
Every aspect of this issue is sensitive. No matter which law we pass, there will be legal challenges. The better approach, the more responsible, respectful, reasonable approach, would have been for the government to appeal the ruling and then take it to the Supreme Court. As my colleague from Alberta quite rightly said earlier, the Constitution says that every province has a superior court and a court of appeal before cases reach the Supreme Court.
For that purpose, we need to have the highest degree of evaluation. In that specific case, the Superior Court of Quebec is good, but it is not enough. We need to be sure of our judgment on that. That is why the government should have appealed the decision and then let the Supreme Court judges decide what is good and right based on the law, based on our Constitution and based on our Canadian history that we are proud of. That is how it works.
However, that is not how it went. The government decided to call the shots right now. I heard my colleague from Winnipeg North. He is always articulate and always passionate, but with all due respect, I do not agree with him. Just because we are appealing this decision to the appeal court and then the Supreme Court, that does not mean we pay no respect to the Superior Court of Quebec.
It is simply a matter of respecting the judicial process as it is set out in our Constitution, particularly when it comes to an issue as sensitive as medical assistance in dying. Regardless of the law that is passed here, we can expect it to be challenged.
It would have been far better to draft legislation based on a Supreme Court decision, as we did five years ago, rather than on a Superior Court decision. I say that with all due respect for Justice Baudouin, who was just recently appointed to the appeal court by the Liberal minister, and for the Quebec Superior Court, which plays an important, essential and extremely serious role in our justice system.
A debate took place in the House of Commons. This was well before COVID-19, before the words “in-person meeting” became part of our everyday vocabulary and at a time when the word “zoom” referred to a camera lens and not to a way of holding meetings. In short, we have adopted a lot of new concepts in 2020.
Getting back to what I was saying, Bill C-7 was introduced in the House of Commons on February 24 following the decision rendered on September 11, 2019, and the subsequent government consultations. On February 26 and 27, we began debate at second reading. We followed the usual regular, rigorous process. Discussions were held. Things were being done in a reasonable manner, even though it would have been preferable if this matter had been brought before the Supreme Court.
Then COVID-19 happened. The government did what it had to do, that is, it postponed the study of this bill and sought an extension from the court because of the delay. The court agreed. Parliament resumed in September, and that is when the government made a serious mistake. I will come back to that later.
Now let's get to the substance of Bill C-7. As I said earlier, there will not be unanimity on this bill because society is not unanimous. That is the very foundation of democracy. That is why we are here in the House of Commons. Some people are for, and some are against. Some people are right-leaning, and some are left-leaning. Some people are sovereignists, and some are federalists. Society is not a monolithic block. The beauty of society lies in all its different textures. That is the democracy that we must preserve. That is why we need to have intelligent debates in the House of Commons.
That is why, during the analysis, our party proposed two amendments that are entirely respectful and reasonable and that seek to protect the most vulnerable people in our society. The amendments essentially call for the 10-day reflection period to be restored when death is reasonably foreseeable, and for the 90-day reflection period to be increased to 120 days when death is not reasonably foreseeable. The purpose of those amendments is to ensure that individuals who choose to act have enough time to look into their hearts and make the decision that feels right.
That is why prestigious organizations have spoken out against Bill C-7. The Canadian Psychiatric Association has expressed very serious reservations. The Canadian Bar Association has said that it has conditional reservations about this bill. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities opposed the bill. Groups like Living with Dignity, a Quebec-based network, and Inclusion Canada have spoken out against the bill. Indigenous spiritual leaders have expressed very serious reservations. In short, society has spoken, and that is what makes for an interesting debate.
We needed to have a proper debate, with people on both sides of the issue. That is why we would have liked the debate to run its course, without the very heavy influence of the deadline imposed by the Quebec Superior Court.
I will now talk about our work in Parliament, which is essential. I mentioned that Bill C-7 was introduced in February, before COVID-19 and the return of the House. However, the government decided to prorogue Parliament. We know that the Prime Minister made this decision because he was not pleased with the work being done by our MPs on the parliamentary committees studying ethics and WE Charity. The more the work progressed, the more things were heating up for the Prime Minister. He therefore decided to prorogue Parliament.
This prorogation put an end to all committee and House work, and the study of Bill C-7 had to start all over again. As a result, we lost 24 days of parliamentary time. Had we not had this prorogation, we would have resumed on September 21, not on September 23 with the throne speech. Furthermore, had we started on September 21, we would not have lost all the work that had already been done so far on the bill, which adds up to 24 additional sitting days.
The government has the power to prorogue Parliament. Even if I accept the prorogation, why did the government wait so long to introduce Bill C-7? Today we are being told that the Superior Court's December 18 deadline is fast approaching and that we need to hurry up so the Senate can pass the bill in time.
The government presented its throne speech on September 23. When was Bill C-7 introduced? It could have been introduced on September 24, like Bill C-2 was. It could have been introduced on September 25, like Bill C-3, the bill on judges, was. However, this bill was introduced on October 5, costing us seven parliamentary sitting days.
Now, the government is lecturing us, claiming that the Conservatives will not stop talking for talking's sake and that we are wasting time. No. The government has full control over the agenda, and it is the one that decided to prorogue Parliament, wasting 24 days of parliamentary time. On top of the prorogation, this government wasted seven sitting days before introducing this bill, even though it knew full well that everything had to be finished by the Superior Court's December 18 deadline.
Consequently, I will never accept responsibility for the fact that we are still not done, a week and a half out from the December 18 deadline set by the Quebec Superior Court. The government is entirely responsible for this situation, and I will never allow it to accuse us of causing delays.
Not once have Conservative members acted petty, not at second reading, not in committee, not at report stage and not at third reading. Some members support this issue and others oppose it, but we have always expressed our opinions in an appropriate, respectful way.
We never used filibusters or any other rule to be sure that we would let it go, without any decision made. We were respectful, because this issue calls for being respectful. We did it correctly. I am very proud to be the House Leader of the Official Opposition, because members on this side of the House, the official opposition, did a tremendous job at each and every stage. Conservative members were very serious; they were very parliamentary; they did it correctly.
That is the opposite of what the Liberals did at the Standing Committee on Finance, where they engaged in systematic obstruction for over 16 hours to prevent the committee from studying ethics scandals, and at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, where the Liberals engaged in almost 40 hours of obstruction over the course of 10 meetings. That is what I call wasting time. We have done serious, diligent work here, and we are very proud of that.
As I said, the government that is being held hostage by that date, December 18. If ever this bill were not passed by Canada's Parliament, including the Senate, by December 18, what would happen? Bill C-14 will continue to apply, and the Truchon ruling will apply in Quebec.
Basically, the regime proposed in Bill C-7 would not apply, but life would go on, no pun intended. People will keep doing what needs to be done, as they have done from the start, except that the Truchon decision will apply in Quebec and Bill C-14 will apply in the rest of Canada.
I would like to talk about one final, but critical, issue.
With regard to freedom of speech and freedom of vote, I am very proud to be the House Leader of the Conservative Party. On this issue, each and every Conservative member has the right to vote on his or own belief. The best proof of that is that my leader, the future prime minister of Canada, the member of Parliament for Durham, voted against and I did for. This is what democracy is all about.
In our party, we have people who are against, like my leader, and there is me, the official opposition House leader, who voted for. That is what democracy is all about. We should fight for that. Even if I disagree with some of my colleagues and even if all my colleagues behind are not pleased to see that I will vote in favour, so what?
We are the only party to preserve that tool that is so important, that tool that can fight cynicism in politics. I am proud to be part of that team.
During the vote on the amendment, there were even Conservative members who voted against the entirely reasonable amendments that we proposed. When it came time to vote on the report, 13 Conservative members voted with the government on this bill. I was one of those members. There were six Quebeckers, seven members from outside Quebec, anglophones, francophones, people from the east and west and even neighbours. I voted in favour, but my neighbour from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, who is right next to me, voted against.
Let us celebrate this democracy. Let us celebrate this parliamentary system. Let us celebrate full freedom of conscience when it comes time to vote on these issues. Most of all, let us rightly stand up for the work of parliamentarians and vigorously condemn the fact that this government has been dragging its feet, which is why we ended up here with little time to spare.
