Debates of Dec. 9th, 2020

Criminal Code

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member across the aisle for bringing the tone of the dialogue in the House to a place where we can agree to disagree.

I fully appreciate what the member is saying. There is a law that was passed to protect those who would like to seek assistance in dying. When it comes to rights, one of the most complicated things in a democracy is asking when one right trumps another. That is the difficult aspect of this. I believe that hope is a right of some sort, at the expense of complicating access to hope for those who I believe should have that full course to access it. I am concerned about those as well.

I appreciate her question, and I hope she understands where I am coming from.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I am wondering something. I am noticing that those of us who have put our hands up are not getting noticed. I am hoping that you are also taking questions from Zoom.

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

I have to take questions from all sides of the House, and that is exactly what I am doing.

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, nothing in Bill C-7 removes the fact that a person applying for medical assistance in dying has to have a condition that is incurable, that they have to be in a state of irreversible decline and that they must also be facing intolerable suffering. In some of the examples the member posed, it did not sound like those people would qualify legally for medical assistance in dying. I would like to hear her comments on that.

Furthermore, I understand her Conservative Party colleagues' concerns about persons with disabilities. Will she join with us in the New Democratic Party and call on the government to provide a federal benefit of up to $2,200, so that people with disabilities are not having to make this terrible choice and can lead a life with dignity and have the supports necessary to lead a fulfilling life?

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very grateful for the sentiments and the passion that the member has for those with disabilities.

I believe that, if we had not prorogued Parliament and spent more time discussing things such as support for the disabled community, which resonates with my mantra of hope, the tone of our debates would be more fulsome and reflective of making passage for hope to flourish in our discussions.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her impassioned speech.

At the justice committee, we heard evidence about the inadequacy of the 90-day reflection period, that such is not sufficient time to access meaningful palliative care and other supports. Can the member speak to the need to have a lived experience in order to make a truly informed choice?

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the narrative needs to go towards acknowledging and choosing the path of better living. More access to care is also a very valuable piece of this dialogue. On many levels, because it impacts so many of us, not just the person who is suffering but our families as well, this area could have been discussed more.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, 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 Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, The Environment; the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Natural Resources.

Resuming debate, the member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to rise in this House for this extremely important discussion, and I want to thank my hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for the excellent work he has done on this. These are very difficult questions, and I am glad I was not the point person to have to do the heavy lifting. My colleague and I may not always agree on all the points, but I respect his incredible integrity.

I point out he comes from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, which is the classic way that English people have misrepresented the first nation languages. It is worth pointing out, because one thing that really struck me as a concern in Bill C-7 was the fact that we are dealing with a Quebec court decision that came very shortly after we brought in legislation the first time.

One thing I found with the previous government, and definitely with the current government, is the fact that if there was a first nations case, they would appeal. In fact, I do not ever remember the government not appealing a court decision about a first nation. However, with this ruling we had to rewrite the law of the land. I understand we are on a deadline, but it would have been reasonable, given the complexity of the issue, for us to seek clarification from the courts to make sure the courts had interpreted this properly and then brought it back to us. It is something I find concerning.

I am again going to do a bit of a comparison, which is a standard form of parliamentary debate, between two options. One option is the issue of Bill C-7 and the other option is, say, a first nations issue. Let us say it is that of the St. Anne's residential school survivors. The government has just admitted it spent $3.2 million in court fees fighting against the rights of people who have suffered some of the most horrific abuses ever recorded in Canada, such as child rape, forced abortions on children and torture done for the kicks of the staff at St. Anne's, who were electrocuting children.

This is all documented. In fact, it was documented in 10,000 to 12,000 pages of police evidence gathered by the excellent work of the OPP and brought to court. The federal government obtained all that evidence, and under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, it was obligated to do two things as the defendant. It was obligated to prepare a list of the history of abuse that happened in the residential schools, and then obligated to present all the evidence.

In the case of St. Anne's, the government decided to lie and said there was no history of abuse at St. Anne's residential school. It also said there were no records showing any abuse. Meanwhile, it was sitting on 10,000 pages of police and witness testimony that named some of the most powerful church people in the land. Father Arthur Lavoie, Bishop Leguerrier and Bishop Belleau were all named, along with all manner of other abusers.

This was really important because this started under a previous government, when Peter MacKay was the justice minister and Bernard Valcourt was here. I know members are going to wonder how this relates to the issue here. Under Bill C-7, some of the Conservatives are talking about a fear of creating two tracks of justice: a set of justice for one set of citizens and a lower set of justice for other people.

I am not convinced of the Conservatives' arguments on Bill C-7, although I have thought a lot about whether they have actually met the test of creating two tiers of justice. Anyone could look at Canada for two examples of injustice. We could look at, say, middle-class white people in St. Paul's, Toronto. What is their standard of justice and receiving justice in the courts compared with that of any indigenous person in the country? I think we would all agree that we certainly have two tiers of justice.

We had that with St. Anne's. When I approached former minister Valcourt about the documents, he said he had no obligation to turn over documents, when he did. This set the really ugly issue in motion. When the Liberal government came in, we thought it would fix this and it did not. In fact, it hunkered down.

The government paid $3.2 million, under the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, to go after the survivors of St. Anne's, who had their cases thrown out because the government lawyers lied in hearings. At the bottom of the Order Paper question, it says the Government of Canada prefers negotiation to settle these. I would agree.

In fact, on November 26, in a Timmins Today article, Christina Tricomi, from the minister's department, said, “The Government of Canada remains committed to negotiating a resolution outside of the courts”. Of course we would expect this to be the government's position, but that is not true. In fact, I have a letter here dated October 15, 2020, from the law firm of Dionne Schulze, asking the government to sit down and negotiate a solution. The government said no; it would meet them in court.

Elders Without Borders, representing Edmund Metatawabin, Evelyn Korkmaz and other St. Anne's survivors, asked the government to sit down and finally end this. The government lawyers said no; they would meet them in court. Also, on December 1, 2020, lawyers from Dionne Schulze wrote to Catherine Coughlan at the justice minister's office asking her to please go to the case management settlement so they could talk about finding a solution.

To go back to Bill C-7, we are talking about two standards of justice. One of the standards of justice in the country is that lawyers are legally obligated under their professional conduct rules to find a way out. It is a lawyer's ethical duty to “compromise or settle a dispute whenever it is possible to do so on a reasonable basis, an...discourage the client from commencing or continuing useless legal proceedings.”

How useless are these legal proceedings?

In Ontario's Superior Court, where the government continues to lose against St. Anne's, the attorney general for Doug Ford's government came forward to support the survivors of St. Anne's, while the minister, who represents the riding of Toronto—St. Paul's, sent her lawyers to fight them. The Ontario attorney general agreed that these were cruel and unusual tactics. Under their professional obligations, lawyers are called to find a solution, and we had the survivors asking for solutions.

I remember talking to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and begging her to meet with the survivors and end this vicious, vindictive campaign again them, and she met with them. I was there as the survivors cried. The survivors said they just want to settle and meet with the government, and the minister promised this. The next day, they were back in court.

Angela Shisheesh, a powerful survivor, addressed this. I will quote her, and I am not making this up. On APTN, June 18, 2018, she said, “She lied to me, literally. She lied to me. It hurts. It’s just another abuse”. This is about the survivors of St. Anne's and the abuse they have seen under the current government. They talk about the reabuse they have suffered in having to come forward to talk about the horrific crimes they suffered and in being told by lawyers that they are making it up and there is no evidence.

I go back to Bill C-7 and the Truchon decision. The government seems to have gone further than the Truchon decision, so let us do a comparison. Let us talk about St. Anne's.

Under the obligations that were ordered on January 14, 2014, the government had to bring forward the person of interest reports on the perpetrators of the child crimes. It was obligated to do that. It was ordered again in January 2015 to do that and it refused. The Government of Canada decided to protect the perpetrators.

What does that mean? For Father Arthur Lavoie, the government provided a two-page report, when in fact it was sitting on 2,472 pages of crimes against children. It had a case thrown out, case H-15019. The subject was a victim of horrific child rape, and the government decided to fight this survivor all the way from Ontario hearings to the B.C. Superior Court to shut down his right to just get justice. The only crime he committed was being an indigenous child.

When we talked to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, she said she would make it right and call Edmund Metatawabin, the leader. The only time she ever called him was to force him to testify on the stand for her lawyers. This man is a Governor General's award winner. When we talk in Bill C-7 about two tracks of justice, I ask if anyone can imagine a Governor General's award winner from downtown Toronto being hauled to court by the minister and forced to testify over the fact that he spoke up against horrific child abuse, rape, electric torture and the abuse of children at St. Anne's that still hangs out like a dark cloud.

I know members are asking why we are talking about comparisons on a bill like this on a day like this. It is because once—

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

The hon. member will have to finish during the questions and comments. We are already over his time.

The hon. member for Kenora.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from northern Ontario for sharing his insight and a very thought-provoking speech.

I would like to speak directly to Bill C-7. As the member noted, this is a very complex issue for many people and a very complicated debate. It is for me as well.

Part of what informs me in this debate is hearing from my mother, who is a palliative care nurse in Kenora. I have spoken with many of my constituents, who have different views on this issue, and I reconcile that with some of my own beliefs. This all speaks to the need for a wholesome and robust debate on this issue, and on this side of the House, we are quite concerned that when the government prorogued Parliament, it effectively limited the opportunity for debate.

Does the member have any comments on that?

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

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the work my hon. colleague is doing as a new member of Parliament representing a great, very large region that is very similar to mine. I am honoured to know his mother is a palliative care nurse. She is doing God's work.

I am surprised the government did not get a review from the courts. I am surprised it prorogued with the issues before us. However, one of the concerns I have, given the strategy of some of my friend's colleagues, is there has been a lot of misrepresentations. I am very uncomfortable about a lot in the bill, but they talk about people who want to have a life where they can jump out of helicopters or planes, and climb mountains. We all want to do that, but the bill only applies to those who are intolerably suffering, facing and incurable illness and in an advanced state of decline. That is very limiting.

My concern is whether we have enough of a reflection period, but they make a claim that this is going to be widespread. Also, I find the term “assisted suicide” very offensive, and it is being used in the House. It is a misrepresentation.

My hon. colleague brings a lot of good points to the House and I thank him for that.

[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 appreciate the member's comments in regard to the issue of calling this “assisted suicide” versus “assisted dying”, because words do matter. They are very important when we talk about this type of legislation. It has a residual effect on the population. It is not an easy decision, and we all know that.

Can the member expand on the importance of words? Also, I was not 100% clear on what the member has decided. What is he doing on this legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, words do matter. I am glad the member is giving me this opportunity. Words like “reconciliation” matter. Reconciliation has to mean something. There is no such thing as reconciliation in Canada as long as the member for Toronto—St. Paul's is hosting her vindictive, vicious campaign against survivors of some of the most horrific abuse and the justice minister is spending millions of dollars fighting the survivors of St. Anne's residential school.

There is no such thing as reconciliation in this nation, and there is no such thing as honesty or integrity from a government that made promises to survivors, looked them in the eye and then turned around and sent its lawyers after them. Until that is rectified, it is all just talk over there.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for standing up for his constituents every time he is in the House.

As he is aware, our colleagues, the member for Elmwood—Transcona and the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, have recently put forward a proposal to the government to try to get a federal benefit for persons with disabilities. That would free up provincial resources so we can start adequately funding things like palliative care and important medical supports.

I would like to hear some of the member's thoughts on that proposal and why it is important to make sure that persons living with disabilities have a life worth living and have the supports to lead rich and fulfilling lives.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that. I was taught as a little altar boy, “What person tells of someone hungry, go thou be filled”.

It is hypocrisy to stand in the House and say that we care about people with disabilities when they are living on such marginal incomes and in such poverty, without support. We do not have the proper medical supports to give them hope. If we are going to talk about hope, it is going to be grounded in basic financial supports.

I honestly thank my colleagues from the New Democratic Party for making sure that this issue of the poverty people who have disabilities are facing is actually addressed.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise again to speak on the bill.

I want to recognize that we have come a long with the bill. At every turn, we have had the disability community step up and be the voice that we needed to hear on this particular bill.

The Senate, the other place, has started a pre-study and has heard from over 85 witnesses. While they brought varying perspectives from across the country, all of them were opposed to the bill and asked that the government go back to the drawing board and come up with a bill that would protect the interests of all Canadians, particularly the interests of disabled Canadians.

As we have seen in the news today, the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River has said that he cannot, in good conscience, support the bill, and I know that there are other members. The minister responsible for disability inclusion, when she was in the other place giving testimony, said that she was concerned, and that she was hearing from the disability community about safeguards and how this will affect those folks who live with disabilities. We know that we are on the side of the angels with this one. We know that we are working to protect the vulnerable.

We heard extensive testimony from Mr. Foley, who gave compelling testimony from his hospital bed. He stated that he had been informed several times of the fact that he was eligible for MAID. This was not something he requested. He wanted to live, and that was something that he definitely was not requesting. Yet, it was being suggested to him that he was eligible for it. This is not something that is happening somewhere else, it is happening right here in Canada.

We want to ensure that folks who live with disabilities in this country are included in our society, feel included in this society and in no way feel that they are a burden to our society. Therefore, we need to ensure that those Canadians are offered the same rights and freedoms as all Canadians and not given a separate stream.

In the case of an able-bodied Canadian on their worst day thinking that it all should end, they are offered suicide prevention techniques. Canadian society has worked very hard to ensure that suicide prevention is something we value. It is well funded. There are hotlines across the country and 24-hour counselling services available. As a Canadian, I am proud that we have a suicide prevention regime in this country that is effective. It is one that all of us can be proud of.

However, with the bill before us, we see a change in direction. We see two classes of Canadian citizens. There are the able-bodied Canadians, who are offered suicide prevention on their worst day, and there are the disabled, who are then eligible for MAID. Now, I am not saying that in every case one would be offered that, but it changes the sentiment.

My friend Taylor has cerebral palsy. She lives her life independently, but she lives in a wheelchair. I have had the opportunity of helping her out with her wheelchair, which gets very dirty in the winter, especially around Ottawa with the salt and slush everywhere. Once a year, in the spring, I bug Taylor and say, “Taylor, it's time to wash that wheelchair of yours”. I'll load it in my van and haul it over to the car wash. It is a motorized wheelchair, and we pressure wash it and get it looking nice and clean again.

However, Taylor got a cold two winters ago, shortly after the MAID legislation was introduced. After a few days of not feeling well, the batteries on her wheelchair were dwindling and she was struggling with life in general. She went to the hospital, and she was asked if she needed oxygen, would she like to have it.

She asked herself what they meant by asking if she needs oxygen, would she like oxygen. She needs oxygen to live, so if she needs oxygen, by all means give her oxygen. That is the sentiment that many folks living with disabilities are concerned about. That is the experience of my friend Taylor, and that is the experience of Mr. Foley and many of the advocates who we heard from over the last few months.

The Liberals have been in a self-made rush to pass this legislation. The member for Timmins—James Bay, who spoke before me, asked why the bill is here when it was a junior court in Quebec that struck down this law. Why was there no appeal of this?

Most Canadians do not consider this, and our parliamentary system is not as delineated as the American system, but in Canada our executive branch lives inside of the legislative branch. Sometimes this leads to a feeling that the government and the legislature are one and the same. That is not the case. The legislature passes the legislation and the executive, the cabinet, is called to enact that legislation. They do sit in here, and they are also members of the legislative body, but they are to do the bidding of the legislature.

What is frustrating about this situation is that the ink was barely dry on the original euthanasia regime in this country when the court struck it down. The executive branch, rather than appealing that and abiding by the wishes of this place, of the entire legislature, chose not to appeal. While that was a legal decision for them to make, and they were able to make that decision, given the fact that they are to do the wishes of this place, it would seem to me that they should have appealed that decision just on the basis that this was the law that was passed in this place recently.

It was hard work. I remember it took a while to get the first bill through, and we worked to get the balance right. I remember specifically the health minister at the time and the justice minister at the time stood up repeatedly, while members from their own party were saying this did not go far enough, and they continually held the line and repeated, “We got the balance right”.

I remember at the time pointing out that I thought we were at the top of a fairly steep, slippery slope. Little did I know that we would be here four years later. We are picking up speed on the slope, no doubt.

The minister says that we have to abide by this self-imposed deadline to some degree. There is some frustration around that as well because of the fact that for 24 days in this Parliament we did not have the opportunity to have a debate because Parliament was prorogued. That was not the Conservatives' tactics. It was definitely not the Conservatives' tactic to prorogue Parliament. That was the Liberals.

The other thing that is really frustrating about prorogation is that the bill then dies and comes back. They had already heard from the disabilities community before prorogation that the bill was incomplete, that it did not have protections in it and that it did not do what it was saying it was going to do. The Liberals had the opportunity to fix the bill during the time of prorogation.

They had the opportunity to fix the bill and to make amendments to it. They could have saved face. They could have made these changes on their own over the time of prorogation, but they chose not to. They chose to reintroduce the same bill, and here we are. There were 85 witnesses in the Senate, and all of them are opposed to the bill. The bill should be sent back. We need a new one that recognizes the needs of disabled Canadians.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, having been mentioned by several previous speakers, I thought I had better actually say something here.

Let me say, first of all, that I have not been silenced by the Liberal party, and nobody has told me not to speak about this issue. I have to thank the whip for making this a free vote. A lot of members know some of my position, but this is, I admit, difficult legislation.

There are, obviously, very strong competing interests. There are people who think we should go further and allow more people to access medical assistance in dying, and there are a lot of people who say this has gone too far, particularly people in the disabled community, but we have to draw the line somewhere. I fully recognize that is the case, and I think the Minister of Justice had a very difficult job, a job that he was forced into by the court decision, but he had a job as to where to draw the line.

Some of us may quibble with exactly where that line was drawn, but I want to ask the member opposite if he does not believe that perhaps some of the issues we are discussing here cannot be revisited when the court-ordered review of the legislation comes up in the coming year.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the legislative review the member mentioned is an important thing, and that is why it is so frustrating that the government did not appeal the lower court decision out of Quebec. This review is coming up, and the Liberals wanted to make all these changes to the bill. Many of the changes that are proposed in Bill C-7 have nothing to do with the Quebec court decision. They have put those things in there. The legislated review could have accommodated some of those things, if that is what the government wanted to do.

To use the court as an excuse is extremely frustrating to me, given the fact that it was the government's job to appeal that decision.

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

Madam Speaker, I heard the member for Peace River—Westlock express the sentiment, which I know is shared in the House, that people with disabilities should be able to live full lives on an equal basis with all other Canadians. The problem has been that this remains a sentiment, and people do not actually do anything to make that a reality.

I wonder if the hon. member will support the NDP proposal to establish a national income support program that would lift all people with disabilities out of poverty.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, that sentiment is shared across the House, and I just want to recognize my friend Joel. Joel and I started school together in grade three and we went through all the way to grade 10 together. He often comments on my Facebook page now. He is very proud of where I have gone, and I am very proud of him.

He has been a Cutco salesman for a long time. I do not know if members have ever used Cutco knives, but he has been a Cutco salesman for a while. He works at Walmart. He is fully integrated into our Canadian society, and that is something that I am very proud of. In his larger extended family there is a whole army of people who work to make sure that Joel is an included part of our society, and I am very proud of Canadian society in that folks like my friend Joel enjoy full participation.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have this opportunity to ask my friend a question following his excellent speech.

In terms of this question raised, rightly, by the NDP of full inclusion for people living with disabilities, it is not just about benefit programs, although those have an important role to play. It is also about access to employment, and I think we are going to get to hear at some point from the member for Carleton about his work on this issue.

Does the member have a comment about the important work of ensuring that we remove barriers to employment, volunteering and community involvement for people living with disabilities, rather than the approach of this bill, which is to create a special track toward death.

Finally, I wonder if my colleague could follow up on the comments from the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River that this will be a free vote for members of the Liberal caucus. It is exciting to hear this, and I hope that other members of the Liberal caucus will actually be willing to take advantage of it.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am excited to hear that free votes are becoming contagious and are spreading across this place. I look forward to hearing if the NDP, the Green Party and the Bloc will also be having free votes on this.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will not be voting in favour of Bill C-7. It is poor legislation that will negatively impact many of the most vulnerable Canadians. If passed, there certainly will be more court challenges that will only dilute the few protections that are currently in place.

I know the disability community, as has been mentioned in previous speeches, has been very upset about the bill. It feels that it will make it even more vulnerable than it currently is.

I was reading a report this morning of one of the witnesses at the Senate committee. I would like to read a few of the comments from Neil Belanger, the executive director of the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, an indigenous cross-cultural disability organization that has provided a variety of disability programs and services across Canada for the past nearly 30 years. This is what he said:

Our organization stands with all disabled persons’ organizations in Canada in the call for MAID to be limited to end of life.

The Indigenous peoples of Canada experience a higher rate of disabilities than that of the non-Indigenous population, higher rates of suicide, lower health status and life expectancy, higher unemployment and poverty rates, overcrowding in homes and they are overrepresented in the justice system....

Despite these conditions, the individuals our organization serve do not describe themselves as “suffering with a disability,” ... Persons living with disabilities may become more isolated, demoralized, experience a loss of hope and the desire to escape, and in their vulnerable state they can be more susceptible to the option of MAID.

He goes on to say, “Logically the first response would be to change those systems, increase health and disability resources and services, ensure adequate financial support for Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons.”

Finally, he says:

Bill C-7 isn’t about providing adequate supports for persons living with disabilities. With the proposed removal of the end-of-life criteria, it perpetuates the continued negative portrayal of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples living with disabilities as having lives not worth living because of that disability....[It] perpetuates the idea that these people are of less value and therefore worthy of a state-assisted death.

Those are very harsh words. As a Métis, I am concerned about the very negative impact the legislation will have upon the indigenous people who are likely the most vulnerable population in Canada in every respect, whether it is addictions, suicide, incarceration, the list goes on.

In British Columbia, we see it in Vancouver in the Downtown Eastside and all throughout. I have met with parents who have children with disabilities and they are also very concerned about the message that is being sent, which is stated in the legislation, that life is not worth living, that it is unbearable.

A couple of weeks ago I watched a video of a fellow who I had never heard of before. His name is Nicholas James Vujicic. He was born in 1982 with a rare disorder called phocomelia. He was born without legs or arms. He does have about a six inch foot coming out of his torso. I listened to him speak to a large group of prisoners. He was inspiring hope. He founded an organization called “Life without Limbs” and also “Attitude is Altitude”. He has spoken to hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people. His message is that no matter what our circumstances we have something to give and to help other people. We need to be promoting this message about overcoming challenges. In Canada, we have some great examples.

I think of Rick Hansen, who is in a wheelchair. Years ago he did an around-the-world tour. The best example we have and who is known world-wide would be Terry Fox. I am a teacher by profession and every year we go with students on these walks in support of beating cancer.

I am also concerned that it is just a matter of time before MAID will be offered to people struggling with mental health challenges. Why would I not believe that? The 10-day wait period is being removed. Reasonably foreseeable death is being removed. Approval of two medical practitioners is being removed. Disability is being added as one of the conditions, and so forth.

I mentioned last week that one of my assistants in Ottawa told me about her grandmother, who was 100 years old, a vibrant, social woman and in good health for her age. As we faced COVID-19 this year, with the lockdowns and necessary safety precautions, she became isolated, depressed and no longer wanted to live. She requested MAID and it was granted to her. I suppose that being 100 years old is reasonably foreseeable, but for all of us we will die.

I know people are struggling this year with depression and loneliness. The Canadian Association for Mental Health has released information showing that four times more people this year are having suicidal thoughts than previous due to COVID.

On Monday, I met with Dr. Taylor Bean and Maple Ridge councillor Chelsa Meadus to discuss the impact of regulations on the mental well-being of many of her patients and the big increase of anti-anxiety medication. This is what we are facing right now as we are coping with COVID.

In the summertime, I talked with the director of one of our local funeral homes. He told me of the concerning increase he saw of people who had died of suicide and in demographics he had not seen before, 30 and 40 year olds who had lost work or maybe lost their business. I have no doubt that as time moves on, mental anguish will be added to the list as we continue to broaden the legislation, which we seeing right now.

Mental anguish unfortunately is a very human condition. It can be caused by the loss of a loved one, bankruptcy or news of a terminal illness. Dr. Frank Ervin is a doctor at Ridge Meadows Hospital. He posted this on Facebook recently. He said, “Physicians now have the power to end your life even if you are not dying....I personally have had a patient undergo MAiD who would have had a very good chance of living 5 or more years. The quality of care and the decision to administer MAiD was very questionable in my view and when I contacted the coroner to request a review was told that these cases are not reviewable by the coroner's service. Where is the oversight?“

I think of my wife Marlene. She was diagnosed with cancer and went through a very difficult time. She had five operations. It has been five years and she is cancer-free—

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

On that very positive note, I must interrupt the hon. member for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Kenora.