Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2021

Criminal Code

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with this particular case, so I am not going to speak directly about the circumstances of it. Even if I did read about it or hear about it, as this member has, I do not believe I could have an objective opinion on it.

What I will say is that if what I have heard from the member is happening, a doctor should be held accountable for it. No doctor should be doing what she just described, just as no doctor should be doing other unethical things. Should a doctor be held accountable for doing something that, by her definition, sounds borderline illegal? Absolutely. We should hold that doctor accountable, but let us not try to change this entire piece of legislation, which is for the betterment of 37 million people, based on one example.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Kingston and the Islands for his very heartfelt and personal speech. He has demonstrated compassion with regard to this bill.

Everyone has their own experience with death and the choices that can be made. The Bloc Québécois finds that the Senate amendments to expand medical assistance in dying are relevant.

However, given that health transfers are being reduced, does my colleague believe that the current government should perhaps increase them so the provinces can provide adequate health services for end-of-life care?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is an issue the Bloc continually brings up, and I can respect that given its position on the matter.

I think there is a role for the federal government to play in assisting the provinces with their health care, whether that is through a direct transfer increase or through assistance in other programs that are geared toward specific issues or policy options. We need to make sure we are doing our part with the provinces to make sure they can give people the care and treatment they deserve.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, today we have heard a lot of speeches about choice and the idea of having options in life. We heard about how end of life was about the idea of pain and anxiety, and it is very clear, through many of the witness reports, that this anxiety is about not having choices in dignified living.

What is the government doing to adequately address some of the critiques and outstanding questions for the UN special rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to the member because I cannot thoroughly answer his question. It is outside the realm of what I was talking about today, so I do not have an answer off the top of my head.

I will say there is always a role for the government to play with regard to people with disabilities. As a society, we have come a long way, even in the last number of years. I will be the first to admit that I did not really understand this. If someone had mentioned disability to me 10 or 15 years ago, I would have assumed they were talking about somebody who needs a wheelchair. However, indeed, the term “disability” means so much more than that. It is everything from hearing impairment to people affected by various other disabilities.

There is always going to be a role for the government to play. I think we live in a world where we are continually seeing an increase in society's interest to take care of people with disabilities, and we will certainly continue to do 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, my friend and colleague demonstrates very clearly that medical assistance in dying is, in fact, very complicated and is a deeply personal issue. I want to thank him for sharing his story with the House.

What I take away from his message is that many people, as they go through the process of life, want to have the option to access MAID. I am wondering if my colleague could expand on why that was one of the most important points, as I could detect, he was trying to emphasize.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, at the fundamental core, this is about freedom of choice. We live in a society where we believe in freedom. We believe in choices and making our own choices. When I go to a hospital, I can make a choice to be treated for something. I should also be able to make the choice, when I have been treated for a long time and recognize that I am at the end, to be assisted in moving on and passing away.

The core of this is about individual choice. Freedom is what our entire country is based on: the freedom to make these decisions on our own.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I took a great deal of time in my speech talking about how this personally affects each and every one of us and that we all have very emotional stories about what end of life looks like and the importance it plays in the perspective here.

The member mentioned the government's lawyer providing advice about what to appeal and what not to appeal. Certainly, that very point emphasizes some of the challenges we are faced with here, the fact there is a wide divergence of opinions. Moreover, the former attorney general, who is an independent member of the House, had a very different perspective on this issue than the current Attorney General. It is that divergence of opinions that actually is important to ensure that we get this right, because it is so important that we do get it right.

Does the member believe that this divergence of opinions is important to ensure that we are able to get this legislation right?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would trust my current lawyer before I would trust a previous lawyer. That is the reason why I have the current lawyer, so I do not understand the premise of the question. If the member had a lawyer and then he went to court and said “I hear your advice, but let me go back to talk to my previous lawyer”. I think the question is baseless.

The reality is that there is going to be a difference of opinion and the opinion of the justice minister was that the government should not go to the Supreme Court, but amend the legislation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have time for a very brief question.

The hon. member for Victoria.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have heard from so many people in my riding, especially seniors, in support of the bill because it responds to the need to reduce unnecessary suffering, but I have also heard from people in the disabled community who are deeply concerned about the removal of reasonably foreseeable conditions and who want to ensure that the bar remains high for accessing MAID.

Specifically around the mandatory statutory review, this should have begun already. Does the member agree that we should do this under an expanded mandate to consider the question of safeguards to protect the vulnerable in this legislation and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have to allow time for a response and when I say a “brief question”, I would like members to just pose their question.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, very briefly, yes, I do agree that with something as sensitive as this, we should be coming back to it routinely. I think we have had some unique circumstances in the last year that may have prevented that, but yes, we do need to come back to it and look at this type of thing.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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 Vancouver East, Housing; and the hon. member for Kenora, Telecommunications.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

I have spoken to this issue twice in the House, the last time being December 4. I entitled that speech “Stay safe, my son”, because I do tell the personal story of being a father of a 34-year-old developmentally and intellectually disabled son who lives with us and is cared for by us. His name is Jordan.

In a larger way, my speech dealt with the removal of the safeguards for Canadians with disabilities and how the government is choosing to ignore and dismiss the concerns of disability groups across this country who have joined in arms in opposition to Bill C-7 because it fails to protect them and their safety in the long term. A quote that is most often used and referred to by the disability organizations is that this is the worst possible scenario.

After that speech, I discovered the United Nations office on human rights has stated that legislation extending euthanasia and assisted suicide to persons with disabilities “would institutionalize and legally authorize ableism”. For those who may need help with the word “ableism”, as I did, I went to the Oxford Dictionary and this is the official definition in it: “Discrimination in favour of able-bodied people.”

For full disclosure, I am a parliamentarian who sees Bill C-7 for what I think it is: the next step on the slippery slope in the MAID debate created originally by Bill C-14 in 2016. Today we are being asked by the Senate to make amendments to further remove safeguards for those living with mental illness. The Canadian Mental Health Association's CEO and spokesperson, Margaret Eaton, wrote to all parliamentarians, saying that “The exclusion of mental illness as the sole underlying cause for medical assistance in dying must be maintained to safeguard those living with mental illness.”

Understand that the Canadian Mental Health Association is the most extensive community in mental health across Canada, with a presence in 330 communities across every province and one territory. It provides advocacy, programs and resources that help prevent mental health problems and illnesses, support recovery and resilience and enable all Canadians to flourish and thrive. She goes on to explain the three compelling reasons that the exclusion of mental illness, as the sole underlying cause, was justified and urges all parliamentarians to oppose the Senate amendment that proposes to drop that protection for people with mental illness.

The slippery slope is the continual easing of restrictions and expansion of euthanasia to a day when society will be conditioned to accepting death upon request. Many of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will interrupt the member. We will stop the time. I would ask the member to unplug his microphone and plug it back in. There is an issue with the sound.

The member can continue and if there is an issue with the interpreters, we will stop him again.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I apologize that the equipment is not quite correct.

I was on the point of the slippery slope argument. I will go off my notes here for a second.

Since this legislation came into existence in 2016, I have spoken with everyone I can who has major concerns regarding end-of-life issues. One was a colleague in previous Parliaments who is in a wheelchair. I asked him to give me a compelling argument that this is not a slippery slope, because I was open to accepting that. He could not. He wanted it for himself and I understood that. I might be in the same boat as him at that point myself, but let me talk about the effects on the larger society.

When society is conditioned to accepting death upon request, many of the advocates for open expansion of euthanasia will say that will never happen. I hope they are right, but the international data and experience with euthanasia and assisted-suicide laws is both revealing and startling. Belgium and the Netherlands have expanded the scope of their laws and, in practice, the safeguards have failed. In 2002, Belgium had 24 cases. The latest statistics in 2019 are 2,656 cases. In 2002, the Netherlands had 1,822 cases. In 2019, it had 6,361 cases. In practice, being tired of life is an accepted reason.

Doctors are also able to bypass the law by diagnosing so-called polypathology. This refers to multiple complaints that occur in old age, such as loss of vision and hearing, chronic pain, rheumatism, weakness and fatigue. This comes from the Vienna-based Institute for Medical Anthropology and Bioethics.

I would also like to address the indigenous community, because it represents the single largest first nation in Canada, the Six Nations of the Grand River. Indigenous leaders recently came from across Canada to say they have grave concerns about efforts to expand the availability of assisted suicide, warning that it will have a “a lasting impact on our vulnerable populations” and that “Bill C-7 goes against many of our cultural values—”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have either lost the connection or we have lost the video. The hon. member for Brantford—Brant is back on, but his mike is not on. We will stop the clock for a second and add a bit more time. I would recommend a House-issued headset.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is the House-issued headset.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We can hear the member now. If the member would like to continue, he has two minutes left.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a major deflection of the momentum that I was trying to create.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The screen had frozen a while ago, but we could hear you talking. Now we seem to have everything in order. We had stopped the clock, but you are now able to continue. I am sorry you lost your rhythm.

The hon. member for Brantford—Brant.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, when we had to stop, I was addressing the views of the indigenous community across Canada. There were 15 first nations represented in my comments. They addressed the senators, federal and provincial politicians and health care regulators at the federal level and signed the letter. I can provide those names to anyone who would like to have them.

In the earlier speeches and debate, many members on both sides of the House felt that this moment in time was of critical importance for our country. I hear the emotion on both sides, and we must have compassion on both sides. However, when we come to make this decision, let us make it based on the balance of protection for the most vulnerable in our society. Let us make it, with clear minds, about the slippery slope that is proven internationally to be happening and in existence today. We do not wish to go there.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I am sorry for the technical issue the member is experiencing. I know that Internet issues are huge. I hear it almost every day from people in my riding as well.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Victoria.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, many of the members in the Conservative caucus have opposed the bill as a whole. My concern is specifically around Audrey's amendment, those who are facing end of life and are faced with a very cruel choice, specifically around the people who may actually choose to end their life earlier than they would have liked because the legislation would not allow them to put it off and to die with dignity and avoid continuing to live with intolerable suffering. I want to hear the member's comments on this piece.