Francine Lalonde

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

I studied the Belgian report. I could make a copy available. Because of the way it was drafted and applied, the Belgian legislation makes it clear that the persons who have asked to die and who have been helped to die were truly at the end of their lives, suffered terribly and could not have been helped by other means—

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I read in Dr. Boisvert's writings that, in the course of the debate, whether one was for or against euthanasia, there were interventions such as these.

Nevertheless, we must ask what is good for the patients. That is the question. It is not about what we personally want. It is about determining whether or not we should, by changing the Criminal Code, allow doctors who so wish—only those who wish to do so—to medically end the life of someone who wants to die, who has made that choice, who is at the end of life and who is suffering. That is the only question. We are trying to help and that is what the College of Physicians and Surgeons, AFEAS and others are trying to do.

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 2009]

moved that Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I first introduced a private member's bill on the right to die with dignity in June 2005, because I felt confident that Quebeckers and Canadians needed Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to recognize that every person, subject to certain specific conditions, had the right to an end of life that is consistent with the values of dignity and freedom they have always espoused and so that an individual's wish regarding his or her death would be respected. In fact, I introduced this bill so that people would have a choice, the same right to choose that people in other countries have.

My conviction has grown stronger, and that is why I am introducing an amended bill on the right to die with dignity, Bill C-384. Briefly, it amends the Criminal code so that a medical practitioner does not commit homicide just by helping a person to die with dignity if—I am coming to the conditions—the person is at least 18 years of age, continues to experience severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief or suffers from a terminal illness. The person must have provided a medical practitioner with two written requests more than 10 days apart expressly stating the person's free and informed consent to opt to die.

The medical practitioner must have requested and received written confirmation of the diagnosis from another medical practitioner. The other practitioner must be independent and have no personal interest in the death of the person. The medical practitioner must have no reasonable grounds—this is important—to believe that the person's written requests were made under duress or while the person was not lucid. The practitioner must have informed the person of the consequences of his or her requests and of the alternatives available to him or her and must act in the manner indicated by the person, it being understood that the person may, at any time, revoke the requests made under subparagraph (a)(iii) of clause 2 of the bill.

The patient is free to change his mind. The doctor must constantly remind him of that. If he does not change his mind, the doctor must submit a copy of the confirmation referred to in subparagraph (i) to the coroner.

Mr. Speaker, would you please let me know when I have two minutes left?

As we all know, the right to receive medical assistance to die exists in other countries. The Netherlands was the first to make it a right. In that country, before the law existed, doctors who helped patients die were tolerated by the legal system, as long as they complied with medical directives from the country's equivalent of a college of physicians and surgeons. Then the law was changed to reflect what people had been thinking about and doing for all that time.

In the Netherlands, euthanasia is when a doctor, acting on behalf of a patient and in accordance with the patient's strict instructions, deliberately puts an end to the patient's life. I want to emphasize that, in the Netherlands, palliative care is excellent and euthanasia is one of the care options.

Belgium also passed a law after senators from different parties worked together to hold nationwide consultations and agree on a piece of legislation in which euthanasia is defined as an action by a party intentionally ending the life of a person at that person's request. The law has been in place for six years, and there is oversight in place as well. This year, there was a report on the application of the law. For those who fear that permitting people at the end of their lives to choose how they wish to die might result in a huge number of people seeking help to die, the incidence over the past six years in Belgium has been 4 per 1,000. I repeat: 4 per 1,000 deaths.

In Quebec, the debate is ongoing. The Collège des médecins has asked its ethics committee to consider the matter of euthanasia. After three years of study, the committee should soon be making recommendations. As Dr. Yves Robert, the college's secretary, told L'Actualité médicale,

Doctors do not want to abdicate their responsibilities when it comes to euthanasia, but we must determine the scope of those responsibilities and how they are to be carried out.

At its annual meeting on April 16 and 17, 2009, the Association des soins palliatifs broached the topic with a presentation by Dr. Yvon Beauchamp, who began his introduction with the following:

I have found that over the years in Canada, palliative care has been championed as the anti-euthanasia and the universal alternative to an act punishable under the laws of God, the laws of man and the laws of the college of physicians.

He added:

There are people who believe that “increased development of palliative care means there is no longer a need for suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia.”

I could go on. On August 11, 2009, an Angus Reid survey of 804 adults in Quebec was published with the title, Strong Support in Quebec for Legalizing Euthanasia. The subtitle read, “Most Quebecers believe that laws governing euthanasia should be provincial responsibility.” The survey showed the following figures: 77% of Quebeckers believe euthanasia should be allowed, and 75% think it is a good idea to re-open the debate on euthanasia. On August 22, the Association féminine d'éducation et d'affaires sociales, the AFEAS, well-known in all ridings of Quebec, voted in favour of euthanasia at its convention. Members of the AFEAS took the position that Quebeckers should be allowed to die with dignity.

Palliative care and assisted suicide are not mutually exclusive; they complement each other. I am saying this right off the bat, because I know that I will hear that argument. How many times have I heard, “As long as some people do not have access to palliative care, we cannot consider medical assistance in dying”? Why? That has nothing to do with the issue. Everyone needs access to quality palliative care.

It should also be known that palliative care does not relieve all pain and especially not all the suffering that comes with the end of life, aging and the difficulty of a lengthy hospital stay.

I will read from a text by Dr. Boisvert, a long-time palliative care doctor at the Royal Victoria Hospital:

Caregivers, whose own health is relative, are not equipped to experience the throes of progressive decline (a teaspoon at a time, wrote one patient); the indignity of urinary or fecal (rectal, or worse, vaginal) incontinence—we do not often hear that in Parliament; of constant breathlessness; the throbbing acute pain caused by a collapsing cancerous vertebra, causing the patient to cry out at the slightest movement; the gauntness and extreme weakness that result in total dependence, even for the simplest things such as turning over in bed just slightly or lifting half a glass of water to one's parched lips.

Dr. Boisvert continued:

That is why I do not subscribe to the idea that people should find the strength to suffer to the end or the idea that people should be so compassionate as to suffer with their loved one, when it is the loved one that is truly suffering.

I would add that I do not understand why people prefer to wash their hands of this suffering that cannot be relieved, that can only be relieved by death, because the time that passes is a kind of torture. Do we here have the right not to hear or think about it? Again, palliative care cannot end all pain and suffering.

My colleagues may have received the document from five doctors who oppose my bill. They may have the support of a hundred or so others. What do they have to say? I read this document carefully and it acknowledges that palliative care cannot relieve all pain and suffering and certainly not the suffering described by Dr. Boisvert. Then why are they against my bill?

They say, “These people have to be heard and helped as much as possible, but their request remains absolutely unacceptable to us”.

Why? To me there is a disconnect here. Their position is unacceptable, especially when they admit:

The line between palliation and euthanasia may seem tenuous to some, since the distinction between them lies in the intention of the act and not in what it involves.

They wrote that because palliative care also uses what is known as terminal sedation, which plunges patients into a coma when their suffering cannot otherwise be eased. In such a coma, they cannot eat or drink, but they are still alive and, in the end, they die of lethal complications. This can take a short while or a very long time, and this terminal sedation basically amounts to an act of euthanasia. They claim it is not the same thing. Even the Catholic church says that when any action is taken that has a double effect, such as the positive effect of easing the suffering, and the negative effect, which leads to death, one is not responsible for the negative effect, because it was the positive effect that was sought. This was one of the teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

When we consider that, not as followers of any religion, but as people who are responsible for the well being of our citizens, do we have the right to refuse to look at all the possibilities?

I would like to see the broadest possible committee hear from as many citizens as possible in order to be able to provide end of life medical assistance to people who are suffering greatly, who can no longer endure the suffering and want to end their lives. We should help them die with dignity.

I await your comments and hope to have your support, not for me, but for the people we may one day become. The lottery of death offers no guarantees.

[Afghanistan, October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to holding up proceedings, the Department of National Defence is refusing to cooperate with the investigation by trying to prevent the testimony of the director of the Canadian-run Afghanistan reconstruction base in Kandahar at the time the Canadian army started transferring prisoners to the Afghan secret service. We have been following this.

Why did they do so little to protect Afghan prisoners from torture, and so much to hide the truth?

[Afghanistan, October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Military Police Complaints Commission is being held up by stalling tactics while it tries to deal with the issue of Afghan prisoners. By bombarding the agency with motions, the Conservative government's lawyers are trying to derail an investigation that could show that the government allowed the transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities, even though they might be tortured.

Why is the government trying to hide the truth and prevent Richard Colvin from testifying?

[Canada-US Relations, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister announced that he will meet with the American President tomorrow. There will be a number of topics up for discussion, but the one that the Prime Minister cannot avoid is the subject of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen and child soldier who has been detained at Guantanamo for seven years.

Does the Prime Minister plan on calling for the repatriation of Omar Khadr, the last western citizen still being held at Guantanamo, when he meets with the American President?

[Death Penalty, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirmed this week that his party feels that the death penalty is acceptable. However, the minister said he wanted to decide on a case-by-case basis.

What is the difference between being put to death by lethal injection in the United States, shot in China and decapitated in Saudi Arabia? Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs realize that he will now be determining who lives and who dies?

[UNESCO, June 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should have read the agreements that came afterwards. It was very clear that Quebec had to be in agreement with what Canada said.

This is also proof that the government's recognition of the Quebec nation means nothing.

Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs deny that if Quebec does not agree with Canada at UNESCO, even in its own areas of jurisdiction, it must keep quiet?

[UNESCO, June 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this is more proof that Quebec's so-called seat at UNESCO is nothing more than a folding chair. Although he disagreed with Canada's refusal to issue visas to help artists tour, the Quebec delegate was forced into silence and was not able to publicly express his disagreement.

Does the government deny that Quebec has no real say at UNESCO, and that when it disagrees with Canada, Quebec has no choice but to keep quiet?

[International Day of Peace, June 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place with all parties and I believe you will find consent for the following motion. I move:

That, in the opinion of the House, September 21 of each year should be declared International Day of Peace.

I hope we will have unanimous consent because we would like that day to be celebrated everywhere as International Day of Peace.