House of Commons Hansard #25 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was medical.

Topics

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak today to Bill C-7 regarding medical assistance in dying. This is the second time, the first being in the last Parliament, that I have had the opportunity to take part in the debate on this absolutely essential legislation on such a difficult subject.

This bill represents a major improvement and reflects some of the amendments that I made but that failed in the House, in the 42nd Parliament. Some of those amendments, in fact, were picked up and approved by the Senate.

I want to stop and reflect on the trajectory of this issue in Canada.

As identified when I rose in my place, I am a member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands and I believe that Saanich—Gulf Islands may have more constituents concerned with and calling for medical assistance in dying than perhaps any other riding in Canada. There are two active death-with-dignity groups within my community, one on Salt Spring Island and one on the Saanich Peninsula, and I think it is for a very simple reason.

Feelings run high, and honestly, my constituents persuaded me in 2011 and 2012 that I had to stand up for ensuring that there was access to medical assistance in dying and stand up for removing the Criminal Code punishments for people who, motivated by compassion and basic human dignity, assisted someone who was dealing with unbearable suffering in their last days and weeks.

The reason that my community is so very implicated in this issue is that Sue Rodriguez was a resident of North Saanich. She was unable to take her own life due to the effects of ALS, but she was able to find a doctor, who remains anonymous to this day, who assisted her in ending her own life.

It is clear that many people in my riding support the measures in Bill C-7, as they did supported Bill C-14 in the previous Parliament.

This is about helping to alleviate suffering through medical assistance in dying. This difficult and very serious situation is unfair to anyone.

Sue Rodriguez went to court, so it is also a trajectory of court cases. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1993 against Sue Rodriguez. She was suffering from ALS. ALS runs as a thread through what I want to talk about today. Sue was losing ability and had lost ability to speak, to swallow and to walk. We know the trajectory of ALS. She asked the court to change the law and she was unsuccessful. That was in 1993. By the way, it was a very close decision. It was five to four, a very close decision. She died a year later, on February 12, 1994.

Then we take it to 22 years later. That is how slowly the laws evolve. It takes a while. The Supreme Court of Canada and the laws of Canada evolve to meet the changing circumstances. I think part of the reason is that we also realize now, unlike 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, that we can prolong lives and sufferings through miracle advancements in medical science, but before we passed this law in the 42nd Parliament, we were denying people death with dignity and the ability to control their own decision-making about the timing of their own death.

Along came the Carter decision, finally, in 2015. Twenty-two years after the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Rodriguez, we had the decision in Carter. I felt very strongly when we debated the bill for medical assistance in dying in this place in the last Parliament, the 42nd Parliament, that our legislative efforts fell far short of what the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Carter.

I felt quite sure, and said many times in this place, that the legislation we were passing, while an improvement, would not stand up to legal scrutiny and would be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Now we have the decision that came out last September in the Truchon case, and again a court has given us a deadline to come up with an improvement. It is being called Audrey's amendment. Certainly a lot of people have identified with that situation, and their hearts have been broken by knowing that medical assistance in dying was out of the reach of people who were suffering gravely but feared they would not be able to form the required consent on the day of the procedure.

I think the bill before us is a substantial improvement, and it really reflects on how courts grapple with this issue and how society grapples with it.

I have to say that in the 42nd Parliament, I found the debate remarkably respectful. Across all parties, we recognized that these are serious matters of life and death, not to be trifled with and not to be turned into partisan debate. The reality is that in this legislation we do make amends for some mistakes in the previous bill.

I always find it rather odd that we have to find that a person's natural death is “reasonably foreseeable”. I do not think any of us in this place fancy ourselves immortal. All of our deaths are entirely foreseeable; we just do not know exactly the time and place in which they will occur.

Doctors of those who are suffering from a terminal illness are not even able to say the reasonably foreseeable date. What does it mean to be reasonably foreseeable? We put people in a stricture where even if they knew they had a terminal illness, such as ALS, they could not necessarily get aid from this legislation and they could not necessarily give advance consent to a doctor to indicate that they did not want to go through what they knew lay ahead of them.

One of my best friends emailed earlier today to ask me to stand up and fight this bill, because she is dying with ALS and she did not think the bill would cover her. I spoke to the Minister of Justice to confirm that I was reading the bill correctly and that, yes, they were thinking specifically of people with ALS.

Our friend who used to sit in that chair, Mauril Bélanger, was lost to us so quickly through ALS. My friend, who is losing the ability of speech, is in a chair and has tubes in her stomach that cause enormous pain. She knows that her lungs will give out, so she is emailing me while we are having this debate. I was really relieved to talk to the Minister of Justice and realize that I am reading the bill correctly, that my friend can get the help that is needed to be assessed and be able to say that she wants consent in advance.

However, I do think that there are some areas for amendments that should be made here, and I wish we had more time. I hope the court will give us the additional four months, but we do not know that.

Some of the bogeymen that have been raised here today I think are considered in the bill. We do have the requisite safeguards to keep vulnerable people safe. No one can give permission for medical assistance in dying other than the patients themselves. They still have to meet very tight criteria. They have to have a sworn witness. They have to have a doctor. The bill also provides that on the day of the procedure, if a person indicates that they have changed their mind, they are completely allowed and of course have the right to indicate that they have changed their mind through all sorts of gestures and words, but not through any involuntary gestures. I think the bill is drafted as well as it can be, but we will continue to consider it in the amendments at clause-by-clause consideration.

The bill does continue to ensure that the death is reasonably foreseeable, and there may be some complications there in the language. I note concerns from Dr. Jocelyn Downie at Dalhousie University, who is one of Canada's leading experts in this field, and I want to hear her evidence. I hope that she will be a witness, and I am sure she will be, as well as Dr. Stefanie Green, the president of the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers. We want to make sure we get the language right.

I will close by thanking the Minister of Justice and the government for following through and hearing the cries of Audrey, from Halifax, that her death be not in vain.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Parkdale—High Park Ontario

Liberal

Arif Virani LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her contributions today and every day in this chamber for so many years.

The member led us through a very eloquent chronological history of the status of the jurisprudence, from Sue Rodriguez to the Carter decision to the Truchon decision, as well as the idea of Parliament keeping up with and responding to the law.

There has been debate, and it is fair debate, in this chamber over the last two days about how we are attempting to exceed the Truchon decision in some respects by wading into the area of advance directives and addressing what is now becoming known as the Audrey Parker amendment.

I would like to have the member's sense and thoughts about trying to get in front of the courts, at least on this occasion, and whether that is a prudent step in terms of empowering and respecting the dignity of people who are in such precarious positions and want to maintain some control over their final days.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I do not think we are getting ahead of the law. I think the advance consent, the Audrey Parker amendment, within this legislation is exactly within the four corners of the decision in Carter. The question of when one's rights as a human being, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are impinged was directly related, in Carter, to having to foreshorten one's own life because one knew one might not be able to consent later.

I would say we may be slightly ahead of a court decision striking the current law down, but we are not getting ahead of the law. We are finally meeting it.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked what the trajectory is of the issue of euthanasia in this country, and I thank her for asking. It is really important that we make a concise assessment of where we are going with this legislation.

It is clear that this bill is ensuring that our country will prioritize euthanasia access, while allowing palliative care to take a back seat. As we know, a request for physician-assisted death cannot be truly voluntary if the option of proper palliative care is not available.

Is the hon. member willing to admit that palliative care in this country is abysmal, and dwindling more and more every day, due to the government's desire to push euthanasia as the preferred treatment option?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, to the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, not only am I not willing to admit it, I think the assertion is absurd. I think the assertion is offensive. Nobody in this place, regardless of party, would place euthanasia as a desired outcome over a full range of choices.

It does not require admitting anything. I asked the Minister of Health earlier in this place whether she would agree that services are not adequate for the provision of counselling, mental health services and, of course, assistance in having access to the facilities that make palliative care so much desired and so much preferred for patients and families across Canada.

I would urge the hon. member to rethink this. One cannot allege that the lack of services in palliative care is due to anyone's desire to push death over adequate care. I think the very notion is outrageous.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I find it quite incredible that the official opposition is suggesting that the government wants to favour euthanasia over palliative care. I find that quite shocking.

There is one issue that concerns me in relation to people with Alzheimer's disease. Unlike physically degenerative diseases, Alzheimer's disease can last for years. How does my colleague view the possibility of advance consent?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I hope my answer will be brief. I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

These are such complex issues that I would prefer to wait for the review that is scheduled to take place soon, five years after the current act came into force. My own father died of Alzheimer's, and I am not sure what he would have done if he had this option. I want to take the time to think about it.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding medical assistance in dying, which was introduced earlier this week and dramatically expands the existing euthanasia regime in Canada.

This bill was introduced in response to a ruling made September 11, 2019, where the Superior Court of Quebec found, in Truchon versus the Attorney General of Canada, that it was unconstitutional to limit access to medical assistance in dying to people nearing the end of life.

I believe it is completely unacceptable that the government did not appeal the Truchon decision to the Supreme Court. Truchon struck down vital protections for vulnerable Canadians that the Liberal government put in place less than five years ago. Appealing this decision would have allowed us to get certainty on the framework within which Parliament can legislate.

The summary of the bill states that it amends the Criminal Code to:

among other things,

(a) repeal the provision that requires a person's natural death to be reasonably foreseeable in order for them to be eligible for medical assistance in dying...

It excludes mental health as an eligible reason to receive assisted suicide. It creates two sets of safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided, which differ in application depending on whether death is reasonably foreseeable. It also creates an advance directive wherein a medical practitioner can proceed with assisted suicide without consent immediately before administering it, assuming all other criteria are met and the patient enters into an arrangement in writing with a medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner to cause death on a specified day.

While these changes are significant, it is the other things where I will focus most of my attention. In responding to Bill C-14 in the last Parliament and now to this bill, it has always been our priority, on this side of the House, to ensure that legislation permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide includes safeguards for the most vulnerable in our society, as well as for the conscience rights of physicians and allied health professionals.

Of all the proposed changes, I am most concerned about the removal of the 10-day waiting period. This was not a change mandated by Truchon. Rather, it is a deliberate choice by the Liberal government to strike down one of the most important safeguards for vulnerable people facing uncertain medical prognoses.

Nearly every one of us can think of someone in their lives, perhaps a friend, a grandparent or even a spouse, who has received a serious diagnosis. The emotional impact of hearing that news can be overwhelming for both the patients and their families. It can cause depression, anxiety and a great fear of the unknown.

I am sure many of us can also think of people we know who have received terminal diagnoses and went on to beat their illness and live for years afterwards. However, with the safeguard of a 10-day waiting period gone, such stories may be fewer and farther between.

Without having to take the time to come to terms with their situation, to speak to their families and to learn about treatment options from their doctors, many people will make emotional decisions based on fear.

Another amendment removes the need for two independent witnesses and allows health care workers to act as witnesses. People may not even hear another voice offering a different solution.

By making these changes, we diminish the extremely important role legislators play in contemplating all of the unintended outcomes and consequences and then protecting against them. We know very well that the current euthanasia regime has serious problems, that it has been abused and that it has been used as a tool of desperation after the failures of government.

Sean Tagert suffered from an advanced case of ALS that left him completely paralyzed, unable to speak and reliant on a ventilator. Despite these challenges, Tagert fought to stay alive so he could watch his son, whom he spoke of in lengthy Facebook posts, grow up.

Sean required 24-hour in-home medical assistance to stay alive. Initially the health care system provided him only 15 hours, leaving Sean to somehow pay hundreds of dollars each day. Eventually, even that was too much for the health authority. Health care authorities told Sean that he would no longer receive funding for home care, leaving as his only option institutional care at a facility hours away, separated from family and removed from the son he called his reason for living.

Sean appealed, but to no avail. He was going to lose his home care. Mr. Tagert fought long and hard for the rights of persons with disabilities and their families but in the end, he was driven by his desperate circumstances to believe that assisted suicide was his only option. He was “worn out”, in his own words. On August 6, 2019, he ended his life.

I am going to read from the statement his family posted at that time:

We would ask, on Sean's behalf, that the government recognize the serious problems in its treatment of ALS patients and their families, and find real solutions for those already suffering unimaginably.

“Real solutions” does not mean removing the safeguards for those who are the most vulnerable. It means providing true alternatives, be that palliative care, in-home care or the unique care needed.

It is not enough to simply put in legislation as we find here in proposed paragraph 241.2(3.1)(g), under Safeguards:

...[to] ensure that the person has been informed of the means available to relieve their suffering, including, where appropriate, counselling services, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care and has been offered consultations with relevant professionals who provide those services or...care.

If we have no intention of ensuring that those services are being funded or are even available, we have failed.

I note that the current federal government broke a key election commitment to invest $3 billion in long-term care, including palliative care. Access to palliative care is an essential part of end-of-life decision making. That point has been made over and over during this debate.

People should never be put in a position where they believe death is the only solution available to them. We are, and we must be, better than that. We must protect every human life with a jealousy born of the knowledge that each person is unique, and has an innate dignity that nothing, not time, not illness nor disability, can ever take away.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Parkdale—High Park Ontario

Liberal

Arif Virani LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Madam Speaker, I have one point of clarification and then one question for the hon. member.

I thank her for her comments today. The point of clarification is that the contribution, actually two budgets ago by the government, to palliative care and long-term care was $6 billion, not $3 billion.

I have a question. There are safeguards. The member opposite mentioned a catastrophic event or a diagnosis that could be shocking to an individual. That is exactly what we have contemplated by creating a second track for people whose death is not imminent and people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable.

The legislation entrenches a 90-day assessment period, a period of time when the person must be informed of counselling, mental health supports, disability supports, community services and palliative care, and then an acknowledgement from the medical practitioner that the person has appropriately considered those options.

Is that the exact type of response that the member opposite feels is required to ensure people are not making this decision, which is a permanent decision, with undue haste?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that one of the safeguards that I feel should have been left in the legislation was the 10-day period of reflection. I think that was very important to leave in this legislation, as I mentioned in my remarks.

The observations have already been made that this could be waived, and I recognize that. However, I think any time we can keep a safeguard in place that allows individuals that sober second thought, we should do that.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I would like to remind her that medical assistance in dying is an intervention allowed only in exceptional cases, under very strict conditions. Access to this intervention is strictly regulated by law.

Bill C-7 will not bring about an unreasonable increase in MAID cases. According to a report of Quebec's commission on end-of-life care, from December 10, 2015, to March 31, 2018, a total of 830 requests for MAID were denied for various reasons, including the death of the person before the procedure, the withdrawal of the request by the sick person or a death that was not reasonably expected.

In short, there is nothing in Bill C-7 that will cause a substantial increase in requests for medical assistance in dying.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Madam Speaker, I do not think there was a question there. However, my hon. colleague made some observations about whether access to MAID has increased in her province.

I will state again something I said in the remarks I made. I believe it is incumbent upon legislators, who have been given the very important role of putting legislation in place, to always look at legislation to understand and try to address any unintended consequences and then protect against them. Leaving safeguards in place that do not unduly create duress should be the route we choose to take.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member about what I think is an unintended consequence of Bill C-14. It is the situation where people are forced to choose to go early because they are afraid of losing competence at the last minute, something the new bill addresses.

There are many examples of it across the country, I have one example that is very close to me. I have friend who wanted to see family and relatives and spend some time doing last things because she had a very serious brain tumour. She chose to go earlier because she feared losing competence.

That is an unintended consequence of the current legislation. People should be able to make that choice and have an orderly and dignified end to their lives. Does the member not see that as an unintended consequence?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Madam Speaker, when Bill C-14 was introduced in the previous Parliament, the decision was made to not include advance directives. I think that was purposeful. Had we been allowed to deal with the issues that the Truchon case identified and keep all of these other issues in mind for the statutory review that is being contemplated, it would have allowed us far more time to look at the legislation, see what was and was not working and have a timely and comprehensive study of Bill C-14.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Dartmouth—Cole Harbour Nova Scotia

Liberal

Darren Fisher LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health

Madam Speaker, medical assistance in dying, or MAID, is complex. It is a deeply personal and difficult topic, yet this past January alone, more than 300,000 Canadians took part in the online public consultation to have their say. Many others, including experts and family members of loved ones who received MAID, took part in round-table discussions.

We also heard how the legislation is working from many of the conscientious health care providers involved in delivering this service. Canadians are engaged and aware of the importance of bringing the compassionate, sensible measures contained within Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).

This bill builds on the foundation laid by the current legislation on MAID, passed by Parliament in June 2016, and extends eligibility for MAID to persons who, while suffering intolerably, may not be at the end of life. This bill respects the Truchon decision and supports the autonomy of Canadians wanting to make an informed choice to end the suffering they face as a result of serious illness, regardless of whether their condition is life-threatening in the near term.

Respecting the autonomy of Canadians while protecting the safety of vulnerable people remains our central objective. That is why Bill C-7 proposes a two-track approach to safeguards, based on whether or not a person's death is reasonably foreseeable.

We have proposed to ease certain safeguards that had the unintended consequence of creating a barrier for someone accessing MAID whose death is deemed reasonably foreseeable, and we will introduce new and modified safeguards for eligible persons whose death is not reasonably foreseeable.

Bill C-7 would permit the waiving of final consent for persons at the end of life who have been already assessed and approved to receive MAID, but who are at risk of losing their decision-making capacity before it can be provided. There was very strong support for this type of amendment from Canadians, experts, health care providers and their professional regulating bodies.

Our government recognizes the importance of data and science-based evidence in the decision-making process. That is why this bill proposes that we expand data collection through the federal monitoring regime to provide a more complete picture of MAID in Canada.

I would like to note that following the Truchon decision there has been widespread speculation about the potential for persons solely with mental illness to be eligible for MAID. However, many stakeholders in the mental health community have expressed deep concern about this possibility. They feel this option directly conflicts with important treatment principles, which are that there is always hope for recovery and that people can live fulfilling lives with a mental illness.

From the perspective of many health care providers and many health care specialists, assessing eligibility for such individuals poses numerous challenges. Mental illnesses are not generally considered to be incurable, which is a requirement under the current law. In addition, the trajectory of such conditions can be more difficult to predict.

In light of the multiple challenges we heard and the lack of support from the practitioner community who would bear the responsibility for conducting eligibility assessments, this bill does not permit MAID for persons whose sole medical condition is a mental illness.

This decision was not taken lightly. It in no way implies that suffering associated with mental illness is any less severe or more tolerable than that associated with another medical condition, such as one arising from a physical condition. Rather, this decision reflects the many uncertainties underlying this question and a concern that allowing MAID in these circumstances could place Canadians at risk.

We recognize that there are proponents who support MAID eligibility for persons solely with a mental illness. However, in light of the Quebec court decision and the compressed time frame for legislative amendments, there is insufficient time to fully address this topic and determine whether a regime that allows access to MAID for persons whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness is viable.

For these reasons, we are adopting an incremental and cautious approach. It is our view that this issue should be explored as part of the parliamentary review process, which is expected to begin later this year.

It is easy as parliamentarians and as legislators to lose the human element of what we do and to focus on talking points and politics, but these compassionate and sensible measures have come from extensive consultation with Canadians, experts and folks who have lived with the unintended consequences of the original legislation.

These are folks like the late Audrey Parker, a Nova Scotian who wanted to spend just one last Christmas with her family but ended her life through MAID two months prior, while she could still give consent.

I want to take this time to read some of Audrey Parker's final posts into the record so they will be preserved in Hansard, because this legislation includes her amendment. As my colleagues in the House debate, discuss and study the bill, I want them to remember that there are many folks like Audrey across Canada who deserve this autonomy and this compassion.

She said:

“This is my last note to you. I can tell you I loved my life so much and I have no regrets. I feel like I’m leaving as my best self and I’m ready to see what happens when I die today. I’m hoping for something exciting to happen but I guess I won’t know until the time is here.

“The one thing I’m happiest about, is that I finally found ‘my people’ during my lifetime. I’ve even met new people that I already adore near the end of my journey so it’s never too late for anything in life.

“In the spirit of teaching and sharing, I’d like to leave you with some words that explain my position with MAID.

“When the MP’s debated MAID federally, someone decided to add late stage consent as a fail-safe to ensure no one dies at the hand of another.

“There are four categories of MAID candidates.... Of the four categories, the only one that is cut and dried is my category of Assessed and Approved. We are terminal, suffering outrageous pain and there is no time frame with using MAID. The kicker that makes it difficult is the late stage consent.

“As I near my death today, it is even more evident than ever before, that late stage consent has got to be amended and removed from MAID in Canada for my category of end users.”

“Dying is a messy business. I can’t predict when cancer will move into my brain matter or when something else big happens to make me more unwell. I and only I can make that decision for myself. It’s about living out every extra day that I can. No one including my doctor knows what the right day to die will be. Only I can know that as I wake each day. I’m not going to wait until I lose myself.... I wanted to make it to Christmas and New Year’s Eve... my favorite time of the year but I lost that opportunity because of a poorly thought out federal law.

“Had late stage consent been abolished, I simply would have taken my life one day at a time. If I noticed I was losing capacity, I would have taken control myself....and called my doctor to come assist me with my death. All I have to give is 24 hours notice so she can pick up the drugs from the drug store in my neighborhood. We were totally organized but the law tied our hands.

“This decision has to come from the patient. No one else. That’s why we the dying should be living day to day until we have to leave by invoking MAID.

“Be happy everyone and be kind to others.... Audrey.”

I ask that all members in the House support Bill C-7.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Madam Speaker, obviously everyone is very touched by the testimony of our colleague.

The member talked about his support for the bill. I too support it. However, I have concerns with the timeline.

I was part of the National Assembly of Quebec when it became the first legislator in Canada to adopt a bill about this issue. It took us six full years. I was part of the committee that worked on the bill that the House of Commons adopted four years ago. It took us six full months.

As far as I am concerned, there is obviously a rush for some people, but does the member think we should take all the time necessary and do all the consultation necessary to achieve the best bill possible?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member, who has spoken passionately about this matter. I heard you in the House in 2014 and now, and I thank you for that.

Someone in the House said that we should proceed with caution. Someone else, a very smart man in this room, said we did that in 2015, and people suffered.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, obviously this debate engages all of our emotions and often from both sides. We have heard the testimony that the member shared. I shared in my speech a story of a woman who had her life taken in very sketchy circumstances. It was at a hospice in Vancouver, where someone took that person's life and said it was based on a demand for euthanasia and that the testimony was based on her own notes, but there had been no consultation with, or awareness by, the local staff.

We struggle with cases that involve major concern, cases that exist on all sides of this issue. I hope that through the amending process we may be able to find some common ground.

The member spoke specifically about the issue of advance consent. I think we should have some mechanism in that advance consent section to ensure that there is contemporaneous consultation with the patient. We know of other cases in which someone gave an advance directive and then had their life taken while they did not want that to happen.

Is there a way to meet in the middle and have a requirement for some kind of contemporaneous consent, even in the context of an advance directive?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Madam Speaker, this is one of those things that is hugely complex and affects everyone differently. We all have different approaches and different beliefs in this room about how we should approach this issue. I do not know whether we can find common ground. I think we found common ground or at least met in the mushy middle in 2015, and we let people down.

I salute the medical practitioners in this country who are assisting Canadians with end of life, whether it be palliative care or MAID. It is important that we see everyone's side to this situation and respect everyone's thoughts and beliefs. I have constituents on both sides of this issue.

I had a very bad joke I used in 2015 when we were talking about this. There is no yes or no. I said there are 50 shades of grey. Only a couple of people chuckled at that joke, and no one got it clearly in this room either.

It is one of those very complex issues on which people do not fall on one side or the other. We could ask 100 people and have 100 different perspectives.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

Unfortunately, I will have to interrupt the member at some point. He will be able to continue his speech at a later date.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Madam Speaker, all of the speeches in the House come from a great place. On my side of the House we value life, and that is meritorious. We have heard other perspectives that talk about ending suffering and that truly has merit, so I appreciate all of the speeches that have taken place on such an important topic.

I know members have gone over this, but just for clarity I want to go over the background for medically assisted suicide in Canada. The 2015 Carter case was a landmark decision for the Supreme Court of Canada. The previous prohibition for assisted suicide was challenged as contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In a unanimous decision, the court abolished the provision in the Criminal Code, thereby giving mentally competent Canadians who were suffering intolerably the right to medical assistance in dying when they had provided clear consent.

In June 2016, the first legislation on medical assistance in dying was passed in Canada's Parliament. In the recent 2019 Truchon decision, the Superior Court of Quebec considered the constitutionality and Quebec's requirements in accessing MAID. The plaintiffs in the Truchon case were suffering from grave and incurable medical conditions that were causing tremendous suffering and a total loss of autonomy. However, they had each been refused MAID under the legislation in Quebec and federally. Because they were not at the end of life for the Quebec legislation and federally, death was not reasonably foreseeable.

Madam Justice Baudouin held that “reasonably foreseeable natural death” in the federal provisions infringed the plaintiff's fundamental rights under sections 7 and 15 of the charter. The court declared the impugned provisions unconstitutional. In a surprising and, in my mind, incorrect decision, the government chose not to challenge this decision, thereby getting guidance from higher courts such as the Supreme Court. By not challenging this legislation, the Liberal government was admitting that the legislation the House passed was deeply flawed.

The court's decision in Truchon gave the government until March 2020, which is now in the process of being extended, to amend the legislation to remove the reasonable foreseeability of death criteria from the MAID legislation. Prior to the introduction of this bill, the government conducted a narrow consultation process, limiting its consultations to urban centres and online surveys.

The minister noted several times, in his address to the House, that the provisions of Bill C-7 were the result of this process. However, he will not share that consultation with Parliament. This lack of respect is disheartening, and counterproductive to open and meaningful dialogue. I wish the government would stop playing games with such important topics and share the information it has with this minority Parliament.

Given that there is a limited timeline, that we are in a minority Parliament, and that MAID legislation will be subject to a complete review this summer, I would have expected the government to take a limited approach. Rather, the government has chosen to take a very different approach. The legislation makes substantial changes to the MAID eligibility far and beyond what is required to the Truchon decision.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, this is a bit frustrating because I have asked the same question of the government so many times. I hope I will be clear enough as to give the government no excuse this time. Hopefully I will actually get some degree of an answer.

My question is why the government has not listed the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran, a terrorist entity and if it is still the policy of the government to do so.

I will give a quick historical background on this.

Approaching two years ago, we passed in the House a motion to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity. That motion passed with the support of all members of the Conservative caucus and all members of the Liberal caucus, at least all those who were present. The Prime Minister and other leading ministers, such as the former ministers of public safety, foreign affairs, etc., were part of that vote and voted in favour of listing the IRGC as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code.

In fact, the motion did not just say to list the IRGC, it said to do so immediately. The Conservatives followed up immediately. We told the government that it voted for a motion and that the House of Commons had expressed its desire to immediately list the IRGC as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code. We had asked for it to be done immediately and the government had agreed. We asked what the government would do about it. The government said that it would think about it, would study it and that the process was under way.

We understood there was a process that could take a month, two months or three months. It is not really plausible that it is approaching two years after the fact. Surely the listing process does not take that long. In fact, there have been cases where terrorist entities that have existed for less time have managed to be listed in a much shorter period of time.

The typical response, and maybe the response we will hear from the government tonight, is to usually talk about other things that have been done on human rights related to Iran. The government will not say that all those things are continuations of things that were done under the Harper government, but nonetheless it will point to those things.

The government will say that the IRGC Quds Force, which is part of the IRGC, is listed. Again, that was an action taken by the Harper government, not by the current government. The Quds Force is still listed as a terrorist entity. However, the motion that passed, approaching two years ago, was not to list the Quds Force. It was already listed. The motion was to list the IRGC in its entirety and to do so immediately.

Maybe tonight will be the night. Maybe we will not hear the smoke and mirrors of it still being in process. It is going to be in process for another 50 years. Hopefully we will not hear this “still in process” nonsense. Hopefully the government will not just remind us about the Quds Force, which is already listed, has been for a long time and is not the topic here.

Hopefully the government will answer the question. Is it still the policy of the government to list the IRGC? Is there a reason the government did not list the IRGC earlier, and why? What is its intention with regard to the listing of the IRGC? It should be a simple question. It has been asked over and over again in question period and late shows. Hopefully now is the time we get an answer.

Is it still the policy of the government to list the IRGC, why has it not done it yet and does it plan to do it in the future?

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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, our thoughts continue to be with the families of those who perished in the crash of Ukrainian International Airlines flight 752. The plane was carrying 176 people when it crashed, and all of those on board were killed, including 57 Canadians.

After initially denying its responsibility, Iran has since admitted that it unintentionally shot down the plane. As the Prime Minister has said, there will be much thought given to the potential consequences in the course of the coming weeks. For now, we are seeking full clarity on the circumstances that led to such a horrific tragedy.

The downing of flight 752 has brought renewed focus to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC. Canada continues to have in place a series of strong measures to hold both Iran and the IRGC accountable.

In June 2019, Canada added three new Iran-backed groups to the list: Al-Ashtar Brigades, Harakat al-Sabireen and Fatemiyoun Division. Iran provides these three groups with substantial resources, including training and weapons to carry out terrorist acts that advance its goals in the region.

The Al-Ashtar Brigades, or AAB, aims to overthrow Bahrain's monarchy and targets Bahraini security forces primarily through the use of improvised explosive devices. Canada is not alone in designating AAB. In 2017, AAB was listed by the U.K., and the U.S. designated it as a foreign terrorist organization in 2018.

Harakat al-Sabireen, or HaS, is an Iranian-backed Shia group that supports the destruction of Israel. HaS was founded and is led by a former leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which is itself a listed entity in Canada. Members of HaS fight against Israel alongside Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The U.S. designated HaS in 2018.

Finally, the Fatemiyoun Division, or FD, is supported and trained by the Quds Force and Hizballah. It serves as part of the Iran-backed forces fighting in Syria and has a presence in Afghanistan. FD is also known to have used Afghan children as child soldiers. In January 2019, the U.S. Treasury Department designated the FD for providing material support to Iran's Quds Force.

Canada continues to list the IRGC-Quds Force and a number of terrorist entities that have benefited from the force's patronage, including arms, funding and paramilitary training, and who help advance Iran's interests and foreign policy. These include Hizballah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Taliban.

We have imposed sanctions on Iran and the IRGC, as well as on senior members of its leadership under the Special Economic Measures Act. The regulations explicitly target the IRGC and several sub-organizations, including the IRGC air force and air force missile command. Iran also continues to be designated as a state supporter of terrorism under Canada's State Immunity Act.

The member can be assured that Canada is looking at all possible options to constrain the activities of Iran that threaten national security.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, that response clearly demonstrates how uninterested the government is in engaging in a serious response to a serious and important question about foreign affairs and national security. We gave the opportunity to the minister, the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs or the parliamentary secretary for public safety to respond to the question, and we have the great fog read out of policy detail that in no way engages with a very simple and clear question. It is not as if the government did not have advance notice of this.

Members know the way these late shows work: The government knows a long time in advance that the question is going to be asked and exactly what the question is going to be. Again and again we ask the same question, and not only has the government not bothered to answer, but the foreign affairs and public safety teams could not even be bothered to show up.

Again, this is a simple question: Why did the government not list the IRGC as a terrorist entity? Does it still intend to list the IRGC? If the answer is no, it should just tell us no. The House deserves an answer.