Madam Speaker, there are mixed emotions when approaching this particular debate because it is very much an emotional type of debate. I have had the opportunity to witness it first-hand for many years. In fact, when I look at its origins, I go back to just prior to the 2015 election, when a Supreme Court of Canada decision was made that ultimately put it on the agenda after Justin Trudeau was elected as Prime Minister. Under a new government, we had to deal with the issue. There was time for the Conservatives, even back in 2015, to attempt to bring forward legislation, but they did not do that.
If I reflect on the number of comments I have heard thus far, a lot of those comments are related to members wanting more debate. They want to have more discussion. It is not that often that I agree with a member from the Bloc, but I can tell members that I believe there has been a great deal of discussion and debate for decades now. One only needs to turn to the province of Quebec, where we see strong leadership on this debate.
It is a highly personal debate. What could be more intimate than discussions with family? I know this from my limited first-hand experience with the passing of my grandmother, when I was sitting at the St. Boniface Hospital, talking with my uncle and my father at her deathbed and listening to what the professionals had to say. Then a number of years later, and unfortunately the gap was not that great, came the passing of my father at the Riverview Health Centre. It is a bit better environment than St. Boniface Hospital, but the same questions were being asked, in particular with my father, who was scared of dying. Who blames an individual when that bridge comes?
There is a point in time in most lives where for an extended period of time, they reflect on that. When that time comes, I believe it is critically important for family, friends and health care professionals, who play a critical role, along with spiritual leadership quite often, to get engaged in a very real and tangible way. I think we often underestimate the important role that our health care providers and those who support them play when it comes to end-of-life care.
I think of my father's passing. When we got him into the Riverview Health Centre, it did not look very promising. There were some medications that ultimately made him feel a whole lot better. I remember him saying to me, “I'm feeling better today than I was three weeks ago.” I talked to the doctor about it, who said that a lot depended on the medications and that while they had been very successful, we should not build our hopes up because it would be very short term. The doctor was right. It did take place relatively quickly.
My father, in the discussions he was having with me, was talking about the cemetery and where he wanted to be buried. He wanted us to understand that he did not want something prolonged like what he had witnessed, to a certain degree, with his mother, my grandmother, at the St. Boniface Hospital.
We really never know until we are put into that position, but I do believe, at my core, that it is the person who should have the ability to make that decision. When we take a look at what has taken place over the last few decades, I go to Sue Rodriguez who, during the early 1990s, had Lou Gehrig’s disease. She raised the discussion, not only on a national level, but back then it was taken into consideration around the world.
When it came to MAID back in 1993, our Supreme Court of Canada made the decision, 5-4, not to move ahead, no doubt for all sorts of reasons. However, the debate has evolved significantly since then. I would like to read what Sue, apparently sometime in December 1992, stated. She said, “I want to be in charge of my life and my death.”
I was a parliamentarian back then and I followed the news quite closely. I can tell members that it ignited a fierce discussion, and it was not just in Manitoba. I believe that discussion has never ended. When we take a look at the Carter decision, which was made prior to the 2015 election, maybe it was at the end of 2014 or 2015, but if we take a look at the arguments, I suspect that the world had changed, because even when the decision was made about Carter by the Supreme Court, there were actually a number of countries that had already put MAID into place, or some form of MAID.
Public opinion has changed on the issue of MAID, even in the last decade since we passed the original legislation, which is why I was posing the question to members opposite. I was not trying to be mischievous. I believe that opinions have changed. If we canvassed Canadians as a whole, we would find that a majority of Canadians want us to move in this direction.
When I think of the individuals who show up at my discussions at McDonald's or in other environments, it seems to reinforce the public opinion that we need to look at moving in the direction that this legislation is bringing us. It is why I highlighted that it is important when we look at legislation, in good part, that we reflect on what a majority of Canadians would want us to be saying.
We can still have our strong personal beliefs, and that is why I asked one member what they felt their constituents would have to say. Is there not a responsibility at least to have more of a balanced approach in debating the legislation? I have not seen that balance coming from the Conservative members thus far in the debate. That even includes the leader of the Conservative Party.
I do believe we need to have a perspective that deals outside our personal opinions. This is why I think it was important for me to talk about a bit of the history and how it has been evolving. As I said, with the Carter decision, there were countries that had MAID. Since that decision, we have seen many other countries explore MAID and I suspect some of those countries are even looking at what Canada has been doing with MAID, because Canada does matter, not only on economic issues, but on social issues also.
We talk about establishing a framework that would allow provinces to put into place a process that protects the integrity of the system. I can appreciate that there are examples that are going to be brought forward during this debate and even previously where there might have been very strong allegations, some of them no doubt proven to be true, which cause a great deal of concern to every member of the House, no matter what side of the debate they are on. For example, when I hear about a veteran who has been instructed, that concerns me greatly, as it would for any Canadian who has been hoodwinked or made to believe they do not have any other options. That does disgust me, but it does not mean we get rid of the opportunity for the thousands of people who have accessed MAID because they believed it was important for them. This is why I say that this has been evolving.
When we talk about establishing the framework with strong guardrails, the debate does not end here. The debate will continue on in provincial and territorial regimes in Canada. Members across the way will say they want one standard practice across the nation. It does not work that way. We have provincial jurisdiction. They are constitutionally given jurisdictions that we have to be sensitive to and respect. This means we have to work with provincial and territorial governments in hopes that the provinces that want to continue to provide MAID are in a position to do so.
I would expect those provinces and territories to add to the very basic guardrails we would be putting into place, and I believe they will. I believe that just as I believe that every member in the House of Commons is genuinely concerned about the subject matter. After all, we are talking about life. I believe the provinces and territories will also take the issue as seriously as members of Parliament do. As we, the Supreme Court and other courts have recognized, it is time that we see the charter, understand what a right is and bring forward laws that would enable MAID not only to exist, but to be supported and, at the same time, protect the individual.
That is something that is within this legislation. There is no need to divide the legislation, as the Conservatives are arguing for. In my opinion, we cannot justify it. If someone says that they want more debate time, what they are really saying is that they do not want it to pass, because we have had decades of commentary and debate, inside the House and outside the House. The public has weighed in. Our courts have weighed in. Parliament has weighed in.
I was here through the many debates that we have had inside the chamber over the last decade since we actually decriminalized it in 2016. I witnessed members of all political entities cry, share their stories and talk about what had taken place in the committees, which was gut-wrenching, no doubt, at times. We have had the opportunity, and we are going to have still more debate and more committee meetings on the issue. However, let us say, for the sake of argument, that we were able to pass the legislation with the its principles still intact. I do not want to preclude what could happen at the committee stage.
We should be able to pass this, hopefully before Christmas. I believe that is a reasonable request, but one of the ways we can ensure that, and have time at the committee stage, would be for the House leadership teams to work on a way that we could actually pass this legislation to committee stage.
Why oppose its going to the committee stage? At committee stage, there would be ample opportunities for stakeholders and parliamentarians to continue adding comments, issues, concerns and so much more. The opportunity is there, but I believe that we need to move forward with the principles of the legislation, as I would ask of those individuals who want to continue debate.
I unfortunately do not have enough time. I would have loved to talk about the issue of hospice care. I would have loved to talk about the issue of palliative care. It is not just money. It is an important aspect, but the greatest threat to health care is not just financial resources, but it is how we manage the changes that are necessary so that we can have the type of quality health care that Canadians want and expect. There needs to be more financial accountability in that area. We need to look at personal care facilities, hospice care facilities and how our hospital institutions administer and provide palliative care, as an example.
I look forward to seeing provinces and territories enter into the debate and discussions, and to taking a look at what the province of Quebec already has on the table. There are already things in place that other jurisdictions can look at. I suspect, over the coming weeks and months as the bill leaves Parliament, that we are going to see more debates on it at the provincial and territorial level, where they will no doubt be expanding on the issue of safeguards and protecting the rights of the individual.
I see my time has expired. I appreciate the opportunity to share a few words.
