Debates of Oct. 31st, 2024

Medical Assistance in Dying

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Montcalm and I did indeed serve on the special joint committee together. He was not able to quite get to his question, but if I took what he said and the context in which I believe he put it with respect to advance requests, if that was what in fact he was alluding to, what I would say is that the committee was seized with a number of different issues, advance requests being merely one of them. Given that, there was insufficient time to properly study that complicated issue.

I understand that the National Assembly has studied the issue of advance requests, but we did not study it in a sufficient way. That is what I took away from the special joint committee and why some Conservative members issued a dissenting report that said that at the present time they are not ready to proceed with advance requests, due to insufficient study across Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada made a commitment to have a national discussion on the issue, which would incorporate the people of Canada, provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, different stakeholders, doctors, health care workers and so forth. I am wondering whether the member can provide his thoughts on the importance of doing that consultation before any form of legislation is actually brought through the House.

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

Madam Speaker, that was a fair question from the parliamentary secretary. I would submit that it is important that there be widespread consultation, not just in the province of Quebec but right across the country, because there are legal, ethical and clinical challenges that have been identified with rolling out advance requests in a safe manner.

That was underscored by the expert report that the government commissioned in 2018, which found that the biggest risk with advance requests is that someone who might not wish to die would have their life terminated. That is a serious risk, so there needs to be widespread consultation to ensure that it can be done safely and that there are appropriate safeguards in place.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and a pleasure to speak in the House and to have the privilege of doing so. It is extraordinary. Every time I have the opportunity to speak, I am extremely grateful to my constituents.

We are talking about medical assistance in dying, which is an issue that I am very familiar with because, in another life and in another Parliament, I had the opportunity to reflect on it in a non-partisan way. Quite honestly, it was a very important moment, if not the most important moment, of my political career in the Quebec legislature.

I listened to the member for Montcalm's speech. I am not trying to take away from what he is doing or saying. I am not trying to take away from all of the hard work, to use a Liberal expression, that he has put into the issue of medical assistance in dying. However, what I will not accept this morning is parliamentarians being insulted with regard to this issue.

I am a Conservative well known in Quebec for my position on medical assistance in dying. My Conservative colleagues know that. Everyone knows that. It is no secret. However, we should not be told that we lack courage or compassion just because we are not like him or because some people in the House do not think like him. That is not the way to convince all parliamentarians and political parties to move forward on this issue.

I am sorry, but in my personal and professional experience as an MNA and minister in Quebec, that is not how things were done. That is not how the commissions in Quebec City were run. It worked across party lines. People discussed things together. I never heard any insults.

It is true that, as of yesterday, advance requests are allowed in Quebec. If it was so important to the member for Montcalm and the Bloc Québécois, why did the leader of the Bloc Québécois not use the leverage he had when he held the balance of power? When the NDP tore up its agreement, why did the Bloc Québécois not use Bill C‑390 as a bargaining chip with the Liberals to keep them in power? Is this true or false?

Today, the hon. member rose in the House. I know he is sincere in what he is doing. I know him. I sat with him in Quebec City. I am wondering why he is the one rising on this issue and not the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, since it is her bill. However, that is another matter. It is a pity because we would have liked to hear from Ms. Bérubé on this issue—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member mentioned the member's name. She knows that she should not do that. I hope she will take note of that next time.

The hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not have the same attitude problem that others had toward the Speaker this morning, so I sincerely apologize.

Why did the Bloc Québécois not take this opportunity, knowing that it would change things in Quebec? They know it would. The Bloc introduced Bill C‑390 on May 22, 2024. However, it waited until the day after this measure was implemented in Quebec to alert everyone and accuse us of being heartless. What the Bloc Québécois and its leader put up as bargaining chips is a bill on supply management and a bill on pensions. If the member is unable to convince his own leader to move forward and he is unable to convince him of the urgency, what makes him think he can hastily convince us to move forward with this today? It is a fantasy. It is totally irresponsible. I invite the member to tone it down, stop insulting us and take a look in his own back yard. What is the Bloc Québécois's strategy for moving its Bill C‑390 forward?

This eminently sensitive and complex issue touches on individual values. I was a member of Parliament in Quebec City when the debate started back in the early 2000s. I was present when the vote took place, and I voted in favour of it. I was also there when MAID was implemented. The debate was not over in a day. It simply got the ball rolling. People sat down together, thought things through together and talked together. A multi-party committee was struck. After that, people reached a position and decided to move forward with MAID. Parliament had spoken. Some people in my own political party in Quebec City voted against it. That was all right, because this debate touches on deeply entrenched and personal beliefs, and matters of conscience. I think that is important to highlight.

In politics there is partisanship. The Conservative Party gets blamed for a lot of things, so I am going to correct a few points. As far as health is concerned, my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rose to say how bad and dangerous we are on issues of health. I would like to remind the House of another event I witnessed. When Prime Minister Harper was in charge, it is thanks to him that Quebec had its first asymmetrical agreement with the federal government. My colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière was there. I was in Quebec City and I saw that. The Conservative Party is a party that listens to the provinces and has demonstrated over the years its concern for respecting and accommodating the provinces.

Throughout my career, I've had to make some decisions that were much easier than others. For example, as labour minister, I changed labour standards and the Labour Code. That was a huge undertaking, but it was easier for the government than moving forward with medical assistance in dying. Nobody said this was an easy file. What I am saying today is that we need to be careful. Rushing this will get us nowhere fast, and we have no right to be anything less than thorough as we consider such an important issue.

At the end of the day, what do Canadians expect us to do? They expect us to make good decisions.

Had we acted quickly and thoughtlessly, we would have gone along with the current Liberal government's haphazard approach and ended up in the unbelievably absurd position of allowing MAID for people whose only illness is a mental disorder. Faced with that, we raised a red flag and insisted on waiting because we were not ready. We studied the issue and convinced the government not to bring it into effect on March 17, 2023, as set out in the act. We managed to extend the deadline by one year, to March 17, 2024. In the end, the decision was made to wait three years.

In conclusion, it is always better to take a little more time than to make irreversible mistakes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, as I have indicated, MAID is deeply personal and complex. For individuals put in the position to have to make these decisions, they are very difficult and very emotional.

As parliamentarians, all of us have very passionate opinions on this issue, and at the end of the day, there is an obligation for us to fully participate in consultations through the special standing committee the Government of Canada is advancing. It will be taking place in November and could go eight, 10 or 12 weeks. I am not sure of the exact time frame, but it is a very important process, given the nature of this issue, that will afford stakeholders an opportunity to be engaged on it.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, there can never be too much consultation, especially on issues such as this.

I understand that some people may be impatient, but once again, I think that, if this were so urgent, then the Bloc Québécois would have taken the opportunity it had to introduce this bill as part of its bargaining strategy with the Conservative Party. Instead, the Bloc decided to focus on supply management and pensions.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her advice on the Bloc Québécois's strategy. She has the right to criticize, but when I look at the most recent polls, I see that the Bloc Québécois has the support of 43% of voters in Quebec, while the Conservatives have the support of only 22%. I am going to rely on the strategy that my leader has put in place because I think it is working better for now.

I take umbrage with the member's criticisms of my colleague from Montcalm and with the fact that she is questioning why he was the one to rise to speak rather than the bill's sponsor, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. The member for Montcalm has been working on this file for years. He really cares about it. He knows it like the back of his hand. He even pointed out the excellent work of the Conservative member who was criticizing him, so I find her criticisms hard to hear.

Here is my question for my colleague. The member for Montcalm criticized the Conservatives for being opposed to medical assistance in dying and he said that the Liberals lack political courage. Is the member able to prove our colleague from Montcalm wrong and say that the Conservatives will support this measure and that they are in favour of medical assistance in dying?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, we look forward to studying Bill C‑390 in the House and in committee when the time comes.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague really emphasized the importance of not acting hastily. I think that was the main thrust of her speech.

I have been here quite a while. The debate on MAID began in 2017 or 2018. That is going back a ways. The courts forced the government to act. A joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate was struck that made recommendations. We have been talking about this and debating this for a long time. We need to take action.

We need to take action because, yesterday, the Quebec government issued a directive stating that advance requests are now permitted. This goes against the Criminal Code of Canada. This is not about acting hastily. Yesterday's change poses a problem. There is a consensus in Quebec.

If the Conservative Party respects the provinces and Quebec, why does it not support the Quebec government's decision?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government of the day is the one that calls the shots. When parliamentarians have the opportunity to look at Bill C‑390, the Conservatives will be delighted to scrutinize it.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the exceptional member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who is sure to shed a great deal of light on this fundamental issue.

I would like to take 30 seconds at the beginning of my speech for something more personal. Today is October 31. A year ago, my partner's mother, Debbie Djevahirdjian, passed away. Today is the anniversary of her death. I just wanted to highlight her life and all the love she gave to her family and loved ones. We still miss her dearly.

I also wanted to talk about my grandmother Alice, who did not have an easy life. She had to flee a home where she was being mistreated and malnourished. She had to leave home when she was about 14. She was fortunate to meet my grandfather, who was in the army at the time. They had a child, a son, who is my father.

Alice had a very difficult start to life, and she also had an extremely difficult end of life with Alzheimer's disease. We saw her wither away before our eyes for years and years. My father wrote a book on Alzheimer's called La mémoire des mots that recounts the end of life of my grandmother, Alice Boulerice. This book also speaks to hundreds and thousands of families across Quebec and Canada.

We all have end-of-life stories from family and friends. We all have stories of people who have experienced the end of life of someone they loved very much and who, over time, ended up unable to recognize their spouse, husband, children or friends. It is extremely painful and extremely difficult. To witness this, even as a child or teenager, is something that leaves a mark.

This means that one day, in our own lives, we would like to have the opportunity to influence this, whether in research, science or medicine in general. It can also be through legislative measures that could mean that a person does not have to see themselves wither away and lose awareness of their own existence or the existence of the people they love. In short, we would like to do something about it.

Today I have the opportunity to rise in the House to talk about it. It is such a fundamental issue because it affects the dignity of human life. We know that we are all going to die one day. We hope it will be in the best conditions with as little suffering as possible, surrounded by our loved ones.

The law currently does not allow advance requests for medical assistance in dying. MAID has been the subject of great debate in society, in Canada and in Quebec, for many years now. In Quebec, there is a certain consensus on the fact that this assistance was a way to help people, to respect their will and respect their wishes to leave this world in dignity and with as little suffering and humiliation possible. For example, Alzheimer's disease or other degenerative diseases can be extremely difficult.

Not everyone is going to want to ask for medical assistance in dying. It is a choice that is extremely personal, that involves the will of each person and how they see life according to their own values, religious or otherwise.

I mentioned my wife's mother earlier. Debbie had a good friend named Janice who had MS. Janice always wanted to live right up to the end. For her, asking for medical assistance in dying was never an option. We need to respect that.

Science and medicine have evolved when it comes to this issue, as has the societal debate. Now, we can say that people are beginning to agree that medical assistance in dying is acceptable and that we need to respect each person's decision. To date, medical assistance in dying has been allowed when the person's death was foreseeable in the very near future. It has not been allowed in the case of cognitive degenerative disease, such as Alzheimer's.

The Quebec government has decided to authorize advance requests. A person of sound mind who has been diagnosed with a serious and incurable illness will be able to sign a document outlining their wishes and establishing the criteria, timing and symptoms that will indicate when they are no longer capable of making a decision because they have reached a level of advanced cognitive impairment.

Now, we find ourselves in an absolutely impossible situation because, as of yesterday, Quebec law allows advance requests for MAID, which contravenes the federal Criminal Code, all because the Liberal government has failed to act for months and years. It is mind-boggling to see that the only thing the Liberals want to do on this issue is align themselves with the Conservatives by saying that they are not going to do anything, not going to move forward. It takes the Supreme Court to force them to make decisions and change laws. It takes the Quebec Superior Court to force them to make decisions. I have never seen a government with so little leadership on such a fundamental issue that affects every Canadian, every family in this society.

Now we find ourselves in this absolutely absurd situation. Because of their ineptitude, their inertia and the fact that they are dragging their feet, we are stuck in limbo. This Liberal government's response is to say that consultations will be held and that a major national conversation is needed. However, the Quebec law has been in force since yesterday. What are we going to do about it? The Liberals have known about this for months. A joint House of Commons and Senate committee has studied the issue and made recommendations. What did the Liberals do? They did absolutely nothing.

Now we find ourselves in this impossible situation, while the Quebec law is giving people hope, the hope of having a dignified end-of-life experience that respects their wishes. People do not want to see themselves waste away. I understand that completely. I would not want to see myself waste away like that either. I think most people probably feel the same, and we have to be able to respect that.

There is someone in Quebec who has become something of a spokesperson for people who receive this kind of diagnosis and want to decide for themselves when to depart this world and on what terms. Her name is Sandra Demontigny. She has been very active in the media and has touched a lot of hearts. Her message is that we need to move in this direction, and she hopes that the Quebec Government's legislation will spare her the worst when she reaches the end of her life. Ms. Demontigny, who has a genetic type of early onset Alzheimer's, has been advocating for this right for a long time. Naturally, she was very pleased by Quebec's decision. Her wishes are clear. According to an article published yesterday in La Press, she said the following:

I don't want to be a prisoner of my own body. I want to keep my dignity and independence. That's where I'm coming from. It's quite a privilege to be able to set my own limits and not have them forced on me.

There are clear rules. An advance request cannot be made by just anyone at any time. Guidelines have been established to support health care professionals in their discussions with patients who have received a diagnosis and, under the law, those professionals can only authorize MAID under very specific circumstances. MAID is regulated and scientific. Professionals, witnesses and third parties the person trusts are involved. It can be administered only when the patient has specific symptoms and when the disease and the person's conditions have progressed to a certain point, so I do not see why the current Liberal government is incapable of taking action. It is putting Quebec doctors in an impossible position right now. Their concern that they could be sued for abiding by the Quebec law and the patient's wishes is a legitimate one.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I made reference, in a previous question for a Conservative member, to the importance of having a national conversation on the issue of advance requests for MAID. It is a very serious issue. One jurisdiction in Canada has been very proactive on it, the province of Quebec, but we have to be respectful in trying to build a national consensus and must do a consultation. To be quite honest, we need to realize that MAID is a deeply personal and complex issue that touches people in very difficult times. We have to make sure we do it right and get it right.

I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on the importance of working with provinces, territories, indigenous leaders and the different stakeholders to make sure we are getting it right.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have been discussing this issue here in the House, in various committees and in the Senate for almost 10 years now. Do the Liberals understand that by dragging their feet, they are playing into the hands of the Conservative Party, which wants nothing to do with medical assistance in dying? It is like a new alliance but against the interests of the people and against the interests of doctors too right now.

Dr. Mauril Gaudreault from the Collège des médecins du Québec is saying that advance requests are an important step forward for many patients in Quebec but that there are ongoing concerns about legal protection for doctors. This uncertainty about the legal protection for doctors is the direct result of the inaction of the Liberals, who are aligning themselves with the Conservatives to halt progress on this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to express my condolences to the member on the one-year anniversary of the passing of his mother-in-law.

I acknowledge that the member has made his position very clear, and I respect it. However, there have been concerns from medical professionals and other experts about clinical, ethical and legal issues associated with advance requests. These include, for example, the difficulty in securing or delivering fully informed consent, insofar as it is difficult for one to predict one's future state, as well as issues around the subjectivity of advance requests and the interpretation of such requests in the face of the physician's being unable to reaffirm consent by the patient. Could he address these concerns?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words.

The Quebec law is clear. If the Conservatives want to respect the provinces and provincial jurisdictions, they must align themselves with the Quebec government, within the framework of this law. I do not understand why, sometimes, they claim they are the provinces' closest allies and that they respect jurisdictions and, other times, when it does not suit them, they say that more consultations are needed. The Quebec law is clear.

An advance request for medical aid in dying may only be made by a person who has been diagnosed with a serious and incurable illness leading to incapacity to give consent to care...

The request must be made freely, without external pressure.

There is the health care professional, there is the patient and there is also a third party, a trusted person, with a personal and personalized description of the signs and symptoms that will decide the medical procedure for MAID that will follow. There is a framework for all of it.

I think that at this point, the Conservative Party should respect the Quebec law.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying earlier, my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton is raising red flags to point out things that might not work, and that is fine. He is also making generalizations to suggest that we are headed down a slippery slope.

Could my colleague tell all of our colleagues that access to care is not a problem considering that a diagnosis is required? If a person has a diagnosis, it means they are already receiving care.

Could he also tell us about the solemn moment when the doctor and medical team sit down with the patient who, in front of two witnesses, specifies the criteria establishing his or her tolerance limit?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Montcalm is absolutely right. There is a critical moment during the reflection process after a diagnosis. People do not decide out of the blue that they want to make an advance request for MAID. They are already involved with a system of professionals that includes people whose job is to uphold ethical standards. Quebec's health care system has ethics specialists on staff.

I also think that this is an equal rights issue. That is the position of the Alzheimer Society. People with Alzheimer's disease must have the same rights as any other Canadian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying how sad I was to hear my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie talk about that sorrowful anniversary. Everyone who has participated in this debate has shared some extraordinarily difficult stories, and I will be no exception.

We are talking about such a difficult issue, end of life. Medical assistance in dying is part of the end of life. I am just as frustrated as my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie about the Liberals' failure to take action, even though we have been discussing this extremely personal and often extraordinarily difficult issue for 10 years now. The government is refusing to take action and show leadership on this issue. That is very sad.

This is not a partisan issue. It is about human life and respect for people who are in the final stages of their lives. In many cases, these people are in incredible pain. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to be there for them and make the necessary decisions. We need to show leadership on this. In my opinion, the fact that this issue has been dragging on for 10 years reflects parliamentarians' inability to respond appropriately.

That is why we are having this debate today. I welcome this debate. It is important, and we need a concrete outcome. The decisions made by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying are recommendations that must be implemented as soon as possible.

We all have profoundly painful memories when we talk about medical assistance in dying. My colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, shared with us his extremely difficult anniversary. Tomorrow, we will be entering November. That is a very difficult time for me.

Three years ago, my father, Terry Julian, passed away. He passed away in an extraordinarily painful time. He was in the palliative ward of Burnaby Hospital for two weeks before he died. He was in immense pain. The family rallied around. We tried to be there 24 hours a day during that period. It was extraordinarily difficult and heart-wrenching. When he finally passed, my sister was with him. I am incredibly grateful for that. My spouse and I were racing to the hospital, as were other members of the family. We were with him around the clock in his pain and in his final moments, but I was unable to arrive in time. If I could turn back the clock so that he did not experience those unbelievably difficult weeks before he passed, I would. It was heart-wrenching, as it is to all of us, to see him live through that difficult time.

A year later, my mother went through the exact same thing. It took two weeks for her to pass. She was in the palliative ward at Burnaby general hospital. It was an extraordinarily difficult time; again, we tried to be there 24 hours a day. The fact that my father had passed meant that my mother was simply not the same. They had been married for over 70 years, so the pain of a broken heart was obviously too much for her. I was with her when she passed. I held her hand, and I said prayers in her final moments. I was grateful for that privilege, that blessing to be with her. It was, again, extraordinarily difficult. If we could have changed the situation in some way so that she did not have to live through those two weeks of intense pain before passing, we would have given everything to do so.

These are heartbreaking moments. That is why the issue of medical assistance in dying is so important for us to consider. In each of our families, with our loved ones, many of us have experienced the pain of losing a loved one and the pain of seeing them suffer. Medical assistance in dying is designed not only to give those people a choice but also, as much as possible, to take away from the intense suffering that the person who is dying, the loved one, lives through. The entire family suffers from it as well when they are in the hospital ward at three or four in the morning, wondering what they can do to end the pain and suffering the loved one is going through. We do not want to see them suffer anymore; in a sense, their passing is a relief in one way. Yes, it is incredibly painful to know that they have passed on, but it is an end to their suffering.

In a civilized society, we try to make sure that people do not suffer unnecessarily. That is why this issue is such an important one. I think we all come from the same place. We have all, in the House and right across this country, lived the same difficult, terrible, extraordinarily painful experiences. As parliamentarians, we need to make sure that this suffering is relieved as much as possible.

I want to address a particular issue in the report, recommendation 10, which states that we need to support persons with disabilities. This is a fundamental part of the debate we are having today. When we look at those across the country who are forced to go to food banks to make ends meet or are homeless, more than half of them are people with disabilities. This country has failed people with disabilities; of that there is no doubt. We have seen some minor improvements in how people with disabilities are treated, but the reality is that this recommendation particularly strikes me as something we need to implement as quickly as possible. It will help ensure that people with disabilities are not faced with that terrible choice between MAID and a life in which they simply are not provided with the supports that are so essential. We have seen the number of times in which people with disabilities have chosen MAID because they have not gotten these supports.

We have pushed for a disability benefit that provides for a guaranteed livable basic income. The member for Winnipeg Centre brought forward a bill that would provide those supports for people with disabilities so that they are not forced into that unbelievably difficult choice. However, to date, we still do not have in place a guaranteed livable basic income that applies to people with disabilities, which would provide them with the dignity and respect they deserve and should expect from their country.

This is a fundamental issue that absolutely has to be resolved. This is a country that has provided enormous resources to the banks and big businesses, with a trillion dollars in liquidity supports to the banking sector over the last 15 years. We have given wealthy Canadians untold amounts, tens of billions of dollars a year, in the form of overseas tax havens. We have the resources to put into place a guaranteed livable basic income for people with disabilities now. I hope that, as part of this debate, we choose to do that. Every Canadian deserves dignity. This is a debate about dignity.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I concur with many of the words the member has spoken, especially when we think of the bigger picture, which is that every Canadian deserves dignity. It is important during this debate that we recognize just how difficult an issue this really is. It touches the hearts and emotions of the people who have to make this very difficult decision. We cannot underestimate just how difficult that decision is.

This is one of the reasons that it is important, as the government has said, to start up that conversation with Canadians, including provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, the many different stakeholders, professionals and patients. I hope to hear from a lot of patients, as well as providers, bedside staff and family members. I think that is absolutely critical in continuing to bring in what will hopefully be the best MAID legislation that we have seen.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie pointed out, we are now in a legal vacuum, and that requires the government to act. Consultation is always important. We have had discussions and consultations for a decade now. It is important to act to ensure that the legal vacuum does not continue.

There is an ongoing debate in this country. I have no doubt that people feel strongly about MAID. I understand this. I think people from all sides come from a standpoint of good faith, but we cannot continue with a legal vacuum that imperils the ability of people to make that free decision on MAID.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby quite appropriately spoke about persons with disabilities. When the Carter decision was rendered by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court reasoned that vulnerable persons could be protected by what it characterized as a set of stringent and well-enforced safeguards.

I would submit that the safeguards that have been adopted by Parliament have not been adequate. The safeguards that were passed have been chipped away by the Liberals over the past several years, including the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable. The removal of that safeguard resulted in the sounding of the alarm from virtually every disabilities rights organization in Canada, as well as the UN special rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities.

Does the member share the concerns voiced by those who represent the disabilities rights community?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, I do share those concerns, but that was not the principal focus of my speech. I was speaking to the fact that we have, in this incredibly wealthy country, not met what is required to ensure that all Canadians with disabilities can live in dignity, put food on the table and have a roof over their head. The appalling statistics that we, every single member of Parliament, have seen for people with disabilities who are homeless or who are having to line up at food banks should give us all pause as we are failing Canadians with disabilities each and every day.

We have immense resources when the banking sector calls. We have immense resources when very wealthy and privileged Canadians, the wealthiest of Canadians, and the most profitable corporations call. We need to respond to the calls of Canadians with disabilities.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have three things to say about my colleague's heartfelt speech.

First, on the issue of improving the quality of life of people with disabilities, it is important to remember that disability is social and impairment is individual. In that sense, we have a responsibility to improve the quality of life of these people socially. That is why we made recommendation 10. However, if it had been said that people with disabilities do not have the right to medical assistance in dying, that would have been discrimination. I hope my colleague agrees with me on that. These are two totally different issues.

We need to make sure that even when people request MAID because their quality of life is diminished and their social autonomy is affected, this does not mean that their request for MAID will be approved, contrary to what my Conservative colleague thinks.

Furthermore, on the issue of freedom of choice, it is important to remember here that, even if a person lives to the end of their days, that is what they have chosen. Freedom of choice is part of every instance of medical assistance in dying. People who have doubts and are anxious about making an advance request do not have to fill out a form. They can make a free and informed choice because it is the role of the government to preserve that free and informed choice.