Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2021

Criminal Code

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing we have heard about are the challenges created by the current medical assistance in dying legislation with the requirement for final consent at the time the assistance is rendered. We know that this requirement often forces those who are already assessed and approved for medical assistance in dying to make a cruel choice when faced with the possible loss of competence that would make them unable to give consent. They are either forced to go early or risk not being able to receive the assistance they need to avoid continuing to live with intolerable suffering.

I think about Julie Briese in my riding, who has brought to attention concerns around her husband Wayne, who is challenged with Alzheimer's. In that camp, they are making that difficult decision of whether to go early. We know Audrey Parker campaigned to make Canadians aware of this problem and that Bill C-7 would fix that by creating a waiver of consent.

Does my colleague agree, and do the Conservatives support Audrey's amendment and support helping those facing end of life to avoid this cruel choice?

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

Madam Speaker, I would point out or remind the member, as I mentioned in my speech, that this is a free vote for Conservatives. The autonomy of the member of Parliament is key to our democratic system, and I am certainly speaking on behalf of myself and the perspectives of many of my constituents, although, as I said, there is a diversity of opinion on the matter. It is exactly the issue that the member has brought up and it is the reason for this debate by all parties in good faith. I will not presuppose that anybody would enter this conversation without coming to it in good faith; at least, I certainly hope not. I also hope we have an honest, transparent and wholesome discussion about whether it safeguards the issues that got us to this point, including why this decision was not appealed and why there was not an opinion of the Supreme Court. The court sought to ensure that this legislation would not come back to us again if challenged.

There are a myriad of concerns surrounding us, ensuring that we do our due diligence, and that is why we need to continue to do that in every way possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to mention Dr. Sonu Gaind, who is the co-director of the division of adult psychiatry and health systems and an associate professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, where he has been a member of the faculty since 1999. During a consultation with medical professionals that I attended this past weekend, he indicated that the number of elderly people requesting MAID since COVID restrictions have been causing isolation and growing depression has grown from 1,200 to 21,000.

Does this not illustrate the exact concern of the member in regard to Bill C-7 being brought forward to this House during such a challenging time for all Canadians, and especially for our most vulnerable?

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

Madam Speaker, I will start by thanking that hon. member for the work she has done surrounding this issue, as I know other colleagues have as well, to try to bring light to some of these serious concerns.

That is why I talked about the irony. We are talking about what has been spent collectively in COVID response by different levels of government in this country. It is more than a trillion dollars. We are talking here about enabling a regime that may not put effective safeguards in place to protect the most vulnerable among us. That is setting us up for a national tragedy, and I hope that every person in this place takes this issue seriously. We need to ensure that we are putting in place the measures to protect the most at risk within our society: the elderly, indigenous peoples, and those who are disabled. That is certainly something I take very seriously.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague whether he thinks we should be doing more for people who are in crisis in terms of things like mental health. Would he support a national mental health strategy to bring mental health services fully into the Canada Health Act and to ensure that anybody who needs counselling services could get those counselling services without having to pay out of pocket for them?

Does he see a need for greater support for mental health services in this country?

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

Madam Speaker, I think the member touches upon an important point, and that is the full spectrum of what health care is today. I happen to have an affinity for going through really old newspapers. I think it is interesting to look back and see how often history repeats itself. When we look back to what medicine was prior to the introduction of the Canada Health Act and look at its evolution since, we see that health care has changed dramatically. I think that it is important to ensure that this is part of the debate surrounding this conversation. Somebody's worst day should not be their last day.

I know that some other members have articulated very well some of the issues surrounding that reality. We must ensure that there are supports and the ability to get treatment, counselling or whatever that looks like in the wide spectrum of health care, recognizing that each individual will be different and each circumstance will be different. We must ensure that folks can get the supports necessary so that they are not forced to consider anything as final as the end of their life.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I reviewed the amendments to Bill C-7 that have been proposed by the Senate, I was struck by how quickly some legislators have embraced radical, unstudied changes to Canada's medical assistance in dying. In many cases, the direction these amendments take Canada's MAID laws was rejected just a few short years ago.

When Parliament legalized medical assistance in dying in 2016, there was a commitment included in that legislation to review the impacts of the law five years after it received royal assent. That was June 17, 2016. We have not yet arrived at that five-year mark. We have not yet done a proper and thorough review of the original MAID legislation, yet now, before this review is even under way, not only are some in this place pushing to expand the accessibility and availability of MAID without the benefit of that study, but we are also considering amendments that disregard all the thoughtful and considered debate of this House, the Senate and the committees of each place that wrestled with this complex subject matter and initially chose not to go down the road that many of these new untested amendments would take us.

The Council of Canadian Academies considered some of the amendments now being proposed, producing several reports in 2018. Former MP and health minister Dr. Jane Philpott and the member for Vancouver Granville wrote in a Maclean's article about the council's conclusions. The article states, “...there is very limited guidance on these issues because there are not enough places in the world that have allowed broader access to assistance in dying.”

That is the context in which we are having this discussion, so it is troubling that the Liberal government has essentially accepted the amendments to throw the doors wide open to MAID for patients with mental disorders, something the justice minister previously had said there was no consensus on. This is a significant reversal that the Liberals ought to explain to the thousands of Canadians who have expressed concerns about the expansion of MAID to those with mental illness.

I am certainly mindful of the fact that COVID-19 and the restrictions imposed by governments as a result have created a tenuous mental health situation in Canada. Loneliness, social isolation and reduced care for vulnerable populations are all very real concerns.

Law professor Trudo Lemmens and Leah Krakowitz-Broker wrote this in a piece for the CBC:

Introducing a social experiment by expanding MAID when people are more vulnerable than ever is not progressive policy making — it is reckless. In its desire to accommodate some who want to control the timing and manner of their death, it puts others at risk of premature death.

I am reflecting on the question of why we are even here at all. Why are we having this discussion before meeting the five-year commitment for the MAID review? It is because the Liberals chose not to appeal the ruling of a Quebec judge.

As Senator Plett said:

Bill C-7 is a result of the federal government choosing to cave in to the opinion of one judge in one province who decided to unilaterally strike down legislation which had been extensively debated and passed by both houses of parliament.

I am speaking, of course, about the Truchon decision in Quebec. The Liberals could have simply appealed the decision in recognition of the upcoming review. It would have allowed for a substantive and careful discussion about the impacts of opening the door to MAID for seriously vulnerable individuals. Even in the Truchon decision, the assumption was that there would be enforcement of strict requirements that ensure the capacity and informed consent of those requesting MAID. Bill C-7 removes some of those very safeguards, including the requirement that the patient remains competent until the very end.

Truchon was also premised on the conclusion that medical assistance in dying, as practised in Canada, is a strict and rigorous process that in itself displays no obvious weaknesses, but that simply has not been shown to be true. According to the chief coroner of Ontario's review of 2,000 MAID cases, case reviews have demonstrated compliance concerns with both the Criminal Code and regulatory body policy expectations, some of which have recurred over time. As well, according to the Quebec end-of-life commission, at least 62 cases in Quebec between 2015 and 2018 did not fully comply with federal and/or provincial law. How can we move forward like this without properly responding to these serious failings?

In one of our last debates in the House, when I suggested that if Bill C-7 were to pass as it was, even before the amendments by the Senate were added, it would be believed to be the most permissive bill with respect to MAID in any country in the world, one of my colleagues expressed surprise that I did not think it was a good thing, as if being the most permissive jurisdiction was somehow inherently a good thing. A law's success should be judged by its outcome, not its permissiveness.

Any time life is devalued or death is made easy, clearly, is not good. Life is to be valued and treasured as the gift it is, which is why we need to put our energy into supporting positive alternatives, such as strengthening a patient-focused palliative care service for all Canadians. There was unanimous agreement from the special joint committee studying physician-assisted death on the need for a pan-Canadian strategy on palliative care with dedicated funding.

Those suffering deserve the best possible care. After all, there is no real choice for Canadians facing end-of-life decisions without adequate palliative care options available to them.

As parliamentarians, we have a high calling to actively listen. Our obligation is to protect our most vulnerable citizens. Unfortunately, none of the proposed amendments addresses the serious concerns raised by disability advocates. As many in the House have mentioned during these debates, over 70 of Canada's leading disability rights organizations and advocates have expressed deep concerns regarding this bill. Therefore, so should we.

We should be especially concerned for disabled Canadians who lack socio-economic means and face a greater risk of coercion. If there is even a tacit suggestion that their lives are not worth living, we should care about the implications of that. Their lives matter. Canadians should never feel pressured or as though the law perceives their lives as a burden.

The Christian Legal Fellowship writes that by singling out life with a disability as the only existence deserving state-sanctioned termination, Bill C-7 perpetuates ableism in a most dangerous way.

We have already discussed in the House what UN experts have highlighted as a contradiction in Canada's international human rights obligations. We do not want to create a two-tiered system in which some would get suicide prevention and others get suicide assistance based on their disability status and specific vulnerabilities.

The justice committee was faced with very difficult stories where some of our most vulnerable felt pressured to accept MAID. Numerous groups were represented. Fifty religious organizations and faith leaders, including Jews, Muslims and Christians, expressed their opposition. Nine hundred physicians and 145 members of the legal community stated their positions.

It is not just the disabled who are vulnerable. Practising physicians fear that they will face legal charges if they refuse to participate in the deaths of their patients. There are blatant inequities and legitimate anxieties with this legislation.

Let us be clear: any inequities of support, systemic discrimination, family network or specific community should be addressed before people choose death. We need to make every accommodation for people to choose life, which is why I am perplexed by the Liberal government's decision to support the Senate amendments based on race-based data collection.

There is nothing wrong with collecting data to better inform policy, but we are sure going about this in an odd way. Rather than considering how expanded access to MAID would impact marginalized communities today, this amendment suggests we should investigate the impact when it is already too late for those many who have already accessed MAID.

This amendment seems to acknowledge that, but data may have a troubling story to tell us while opting to study that impact on the fly, before we understand what it will mean for the life-and-death decisions of the members of marginalized communities.

That being the case, we should refer back to the Council of Canadian Academies' expert panel, which identified a number of concerns associated with expanding MAID in this way. Its claim suggests that the data is predictable, as having a mental disorder is strongly correlated with certain social, economic and environmental inequalities such as poverty, unemployment, homelessness, social isolation, stigma and discrimination, and that people with mental disorders face impediments to accessing appropriate mental health care in Canada. Let us not wait for people to feel forced to make the choice of death to collect this data.

It has not taken long for us to forget the safeguards that we put in place for the protection of our most vulnerable just a few short years ago. I have expressed my deep concern for this bill a few times in the House. My conviction is that life is a gift to be valued. These amendments only heighten my deep concern.

Life is a gift. I am reminded of when my kids and grandkids brought home gifts that they had made at school. Sometimes they were not very attractive and, quite frankly, perhaps I was not the proudest to put them on my mantle or display them on my fridge, but they were gifts.

Life is a gift. I did not then take those gifts and give them back, saying that I did not really want their gifts because they did not look very nice. No matter what the gift looked like, no matter in what condition it was, it was a gift and I recognized the gift. I showed appreciation to my grandchildren for the expression of their love toward me. For each and every Canadian, life is a gift and we need to appreciate it for what it is. They do not all look the same and some life circumstances put some of our constituents and fellow citizens in situations that are not desirable, yet we have to recognize that life is precious and life is a gift.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his sincere comments. He and I rarely agree on many things in Parliament, but I never question his sincerity and his great attempts to represent his constituents. It is strange that the Liberals have driven us to a point where the member and I now agree.

I agree with the hon. member that, in accepting the Senate amendment, the Liberals have short-circuited the review that they were supposed to be doing of MAID legislation. In fact, they have gone farther and I wonder if the member would agree with me. By creating a special panel to set up supposed safeguards for those with mental illness, the government is prejudging the outcome of that study and suggesting that we are going to approve those with mental illness as their sole underlying condition for medical assistance in dying.

Does the member agree that the Liberals are actually prejudging this program in the way that they have stated their motion?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is probably correct. On a lot of issues we do not agree, yet there are a lot of times when we actually do agree. I know we share certain passions and have talked about those that revolve around the animal kingdom.

His question about prejudging the outcome of where this legislation would be going is an accurate assessment. The Liberals could have done two things. They could have appealed this legislation to the Supreme Court. Only one judge in Quebec made this ruling, and they could have immediately appealed it to the Supreme Court. They have put very qualified and competent people on the Supreme Court, and they could have asked them to render an opinion on this. They could have also provided a situation where it could have been properly debated in the House by the review that the Liberals were legislated to do in 2016.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation.

I was really struck by and really appreciated one thing he said: Those suffering deserve the best possible care. I completely agree with him, but not necessarily for the same reasons.

He also said that life is a gift. I will expand on that and say that death is not always a gift. Within the past two years, I experienced the death of my father, who received MAID. It was an extraordinary end and departure, despite the pain we were feeling. I also lost my brother, who suffered excruciating pain as a result of cancer.

How does my colleague respond to the extreme suffering some people experience at the end of their journey?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to extend my sympathies to the member on the passing of his brother and his father. Those are difficult things. Both of my parents passed away from cancer as well. My mom passed shortly after I was elected to the House. She had a very difficult cancer: lung cancer, although she was never a smoker. I had many conversations with the doctor and the palliative care nurse who provided her with medical assistance, and they both assured me and my siblings that we had the proper medications available to us to take away pain and also take away anxiety, so that the final moments in one's life did not have to be filled with anxiety and pain, but they could have a nice transition into the next world.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to share comments I received in an email from a gentleman who has spent his life serving underprivileged people as a captain with the Salvation Army in my community. He wrote a couple of days ago that “The reality of what is happening with this already profoundly flawed Bill, is nothing short of the abdication of what little moral authority our Government and Senate had—it truly signals the blindness to, the utter contempt and indifference of, this Government to those most vulnerable—and the present and future ramifications that will be borne by those most at risk—and indeed to the collective conscience of our entire nation.”

I want to give my hon. colleague the opportunity to speak to what some of the future ramifications to the most vulnerable of our society might be because of this legislation.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. Probably the most powerful, the most compelling and the loudest voices that we heard at committee, both in the House and also in the Senate, were from the group of individuals and professionals representing those with disabilities. We also had people with disabilities who presented how they absolutely feared this legislation, that their lives would be deemed less valuable than someone else's, and that they would experience a tremendous amount of coercion and influence to access medical assistance in dying.

I think for the most vulnerable in our society this legislation poses a very high degree of risk as it is presently.

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

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about palliative care. He talked about the drugs that were available for pain, suffering and anxiety while in palliative care. Indeed, those drugs exist, but the member must know that they are not effective treatment in every scenario. There are scenarios where the drugs provided are not adequate to relieve the pain or the anxiety somebody is facing.

Is the member willing to acknowledge that this is a reality, or is he steadfast in his belief that all pain can be alleviated through drugs when it comes to end of life?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think the member recognizes that I am not a medical expert. We know that the Liberals always say they want to base everything on the science, so that is what I have to go back to.

I go back to the discussions I had with the doctors who treated both my mother and father and the nurses who provided palliative care. They said we have the drugs available to us today, in our arsenal, to address issues of both pain and anxiety, and that those are the two predominant issues people are concerned about when facing the end of life.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have time for a quick question.

The hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised that my NDP and Conservative colleagues hold the same view about the outcome of a debate that has not yet happened.

It would seem that my colleagues are not used to doing the work before a ruling is handed down by the court, and that they would prefer a ruling that will dictate what we should think instead of defining what is right and what is best for everyone.

That is a comment. I will stop there because I have run out of time.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the issue here is that when we look at the commitment and the legislation from 2016, there was a requirement for the government to conduct a review. That review would have brought forward all kinds of empirical information, which is absolutely required in making the right decisions. In the absence of that review, people are shooting from the hip. The experts who provided testimony at committee told us where things were going. They could see it.

We can rely on expert opinion from testimony at committee to tell us where some of the legislation is headed. The panel that the Liberals want to propose in no way, shape or form replaces the review that was scheduled to happen after the five-year period of legalization.

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

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise today to speak to such an important topic. I had the opportunity to speak to this bill back in December when it was voted on before it was sent over to the Senate.

I will say from the outset that I do not pretend to be an expert on this matter, but I certainly have had a lot of personal experiences that have informed my opinion over the last few months. I think it is safe to say that before that, although I have always been an individual who supports people's right to choose when it comes to their own health and their bodies, I did not really take a strong position one way or the other on this particular legislation. That was until I had those personal experiences, which perhaps I will touch on in a few minutes.

First, I will talk a little about how we got here. I think it is important to talk about this, because it has come up a number of times from the other side of the House in questions about the rush. I mean, the number of times I have heard about the rush today could make my head spin. I would argue that there has been very little rushing going on when it comes to this issue. Let us go back to the start of this.

The Supreme Court made a ruling. Stephen Harper was the prime minister then, and he, as the prime minister, and the government were tasked with coming up with legislation that could address and respect that ruling. However, he chose not to do anything about it. I think it is quite clear he did that because of his political motivations.

It would have exposed him to a lot of what we are seeing now. He probably figured it was best to put this on the back burner and not do anything about it. Politically speaking, it was probably the best thing to do. Certainly, it was not the responsible thing to do. Certainly, it was not the thing a responsible government would do. He should have tackled this head on as he was charged to do by the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, he really did not act on it.

However, when the Liberal government was first elected in 2015, the first committee it set up, if I remember correctly, was a committee to study this issue. This was so we could respond in due course to the Supreme Court's ruling and bring forth legislation.

That happened, and there was obviously a lot of controversy about it at the time. Some said it was not going far enough. Some said it was going too far, and people voted as they saw fit. Ultimately, the legislation was passed. Now, here we are addressing the fact that a superior court in Quebec has ruled that it was unconstitutional, and we are tasked with making amendments in order to reflect that.

To the point that it has taken so long to get here, well, come on. This has been going on since 2014. We are seven years into this. Do not say that this is taking a long time and that there is a sudden rush. If there is a rush to get this done now, it is quite clear that is because we are responding to the superior court's ruling, which has already been extended as a result of COVID-19.

I have heard a number of Conservatives criticize us and say, “Why wouldn't you take it to the Supreme Court?” Well, it is very obvious what to do when a government goes to its lawyer and that lawyer says that we could go to court but we would be wasting money in doing that because, in the lawyer's opinion, we would probably not win.

Usually one listens to one's lawyers. That is why we get lawyers. They give advice on how to move through a process. If the lawyer says, “Guys, it's probably not in the best interest to go to the Supreme Court, because you're probably going to lose”, one listens.

Maybe the Conservatives would like to see taxpayer money tied up in the legal fees associated with that. Alternatively, we could take the realistic, rational approach to respond to it and do what we think is right.

For the Conservatives to stand up and say that we should have taken this all the way to the Supreme Court is a misuse of the Supreme Court. We go to the Supreme Court when we feel as though we are in the proper position and that the legislation is correct. We saw the government reflect on the superior court's ruling and decide that, yes, maybe we do need to fix this and that maybe we do need to make some adjustments to this. Going to the Supreme Court would have wasted taxpayer money, and it would have wasted time.

However, we will do the hard thing, which is to bring this very sensitive topic back before this House so that people, including me, can get emotional and talk about this in order to make the legislation better and make the lives of Canadians better.

Members will recall that a few moments ago I spoke to Stephen Harper's approach, which was basically not wanting to deal with this and pushing it out of the way. This government could have done that. It could have gone to the Supreme Court, tied it up, did this and that to really slow down the process, and pump this a few years down the road to feel better about itself. This was the approach that Stephen Harper took, but that is not the approach this government took.

Instead, this government said that the superior court is right. We need to respect it. We need to do the right thing, not just because we want good, proper laws that are constitutional, but also because we want to do the right thing in the name of Canadians.

Therefore, for me to hear Conservatives question why this was not challenged all the way to the Supreme Court just goes to show that they would have done anything to slow this down or block this all the way along. That is how we basically got here.

One of the other issues I find very troubling, having sat here and listened to the debate, is the number of people who have gotten up and said, “All that needs to happen is for somebody with a disability to go into a hospital and just like that the doctor can prescribe MAID. Do we really want to create a scenario like that?”

That is fearmongering. That is absolute fearmongering. That behaviour is illegal, unethical and completely improper, but that is not the picture the opposition members want to paint. They want to paint a picture of disabled individuals' rights being stripped away from them with doctors suddenly able to say, “Oh, you have a disability. Well then, you should get MAID”. Come on.

To suggest that a doctor is going to act in bad faith like that is a completely unfair characterization of the incredible work that doctors do throughout this country. By the way, if a doctor does act in bad faith, there are laws in place to take care of them, to bring them before their professional bodies to make sure they are properly brought to account for their actions. This is a red herring, at best. This is a false notion that doctors are going to suddenly act irresponsibly is ludicrous.

I will accept the argument that there could be a slippery slope and that we need to put proper safeguards in place to make sure that people are properly taken care of. Most important, we need to make sure that people get all the information they need in order to make these very important decisions. This is the information that comes with talking and consulting with one's doctor and perhaps going for another opinion.

People need information to make decisions, and we should not neglect giving people information. We should definitely be investing in making sure that people have the information they need, and the proper tools and resources to make these decisions on their own, because they are their own decisions to make.

I also would like to address the issue of palliative care. It is the default go-to argument of the Conservatives that if we had palliative care, then all the problems would be solved. To the previous speaker, I said that surely he must agree that not all cocktails of drugs can alleviate pain for people in their last days. The response was that they had been told by doctors that they can do whatever it takes to alleviate anxiety and pain so people can be in a comfortable state during their last days.

I will tell the story of my father-in-law from just two months ago. This is not disconnected from me. I saw this with my own eyes. My father-in-law was diagnosed just after the 2019 election with colon cancer. In July of this year, they found a tumour in his brain. They removed the tumour, but everybody knew that it was still only a matter of time.

At the end of November, he went back into the hospital and the doctors operated again. This man wanted to live. He wanted to live, and he would have fought to stay one more day for his grandchildren, but it just was not going to happen.

My father-in-law never would have accepted MAID. He would have said, “Are you kidding? I don't want that.” He would not have accepted it under any circumstance. After they operated on him again and removed as much of the tumour as they could, they said, “Don, we're really sorry to inform you that you're going to die very soon. We cannot do anything else for you.”

It was at that moment, at the end of November in 2020, he realized the end was near. He told my wife, his daughter, that the fight was over. For 10 days, the tumour raged on. He laid in a bed in palliative care, getting all the medicine that supposedly, according to Conservatives, puts people in a state of ease.

He received all this medicine, and I am telling members right now, it did not help him. He was convulsing in the bed and having seizures at times. He was in pain. My mother-in-law sat next to him the whole time and watched it all.

For Conservatives to paint this narrative all the time that it is a peaceful moment of one laying in bed at home with their wife by their side as they slowly slip away into the night is absolute baloney. It does not always happen like that.

Is the member standing on a point of order in the middle of my speech?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

One moment, please.

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand emotions run high in a debate like this, but the mischaracterization of members related to what has been said during this debate is certainly a—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is not a point of order.

I would like to remind the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands that I know what my role is. I do not need anybody to tell me what to do. If I need assistance, I will ask the clerks.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands can continue his speech.

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

Madam Speaker, I apologize for that. I obviously find this to be a very personal issue. I think it would have been best for the member not to say anything rather than try to defend himself.

I have been sitting here all day, since the House started at 10 o'clock. I have heard the arguments and I am responding to what I have heard. I heard a Conservative member talk about how wonderful it was to sing songs with their mother and then she slipped away in the night. It does not always happen like that. My father-in-law was a perfect example of this.

I want to be very clear, and this is where I was going before I was interrupted. I am not suggesting that my father-in-law would have chosen MAID. My father-in-law was a hunter, a real rugged man. He took on his responsibilities and took great pride in everything he did. I do not know if he would have selected MAID, but what I do know is that he did not have an option. He did not have the choice. Instead, people got to sit by his side and watch him suffer. Most importantly, he suffered.

I understand there are various positions on this on all sides of the House. I get that people can be charged by this. I am a Catholic and this goes against a lot of what many of my supporters and, in particular, my church would advocate for. However, I will say again, as I said at the start of my speech and will say at the end, that I strongly believe people need choices. When we have a world in which our medical system has advanced so much that we can literally keep people alive now who we could not 10 or 15 years ago, there have to be other options.

I hope I am never put in a position to contribute to making one of these decisions, but at least I take comfort in knowing that options need to be available to people. Unfortunately, the rhetoric that I have heard today does not support that.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague said it was not possible for someone to get MAID if they were in an emergency. I wonder if he could speak to the story of Candice Lewis, a 25-year-old woman with a significant disability who lives in Newfoundland with her mother, Sheila Elson. Elson reported that when Candice was receiving emergency medical care treatment in a hospital in 2017, a doctor approached her to propose MAID for her daughter. According to Elson, when she firmly stated that she would not consider MAID for Candice, the doctor accused her of being selfish.

I understand that no one has been charged in this case. You mentioned this would normally happen but we are not seeing it. Could you comment on this particular case?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the member that she is to address all questions through the Chair, not directly to members.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.