Harold Albrecht

[Petitions, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from over 200 petitioners who are calling upon the Government of Canada to enact clear conscience protection for health care workers and institutions with respect to the physician-assisted dying bill that is before the House.

[Petitions, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today.

The first petition calls upon the House of Commons to pass legislation which would recognize preborn children as separate victims when they are injured or killed during the commission of an offence against their mothers, allowing two charges to be laid against the offender instead of just one.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her service on the joint parliamentary committee that studied physician-assisted dying.

My colleague referred many times to my former colleague, Steven Fletcher, who appeared before the committee. I have had many conversations with him, and I understand his position. However, my concern is that, had Mr. Fletcher had access to physician-assisted suicide years ago, when his accident first occurred, he very well may have followed through. That would have been a huge loss for Canada and for his family.

My concern is that when we implement these kinds of decisions, there is always the risk of one person inadvertently terminating his or her life, which would be a huge loss. We no longer practise capital punishment in Canada. One of the reasons is that it is too great a risk that one innocent person might die.

How would my colleague ensure that someone like Mr. Fletcher, who in a time of deep depression and deep physical suffering, may have taken the choice that would have hurt him and all of Canada because of the loss of his life and his contribution to our country?

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his work as co-chair of the committee and for the good working relationship that our committee had.

There is one concern I have, and this happened frequently during our committee hearings as well, I believe unintentionally, or perhaps intentionally. There is a conflation of two issues. One is physician-assisted dying or physician-assisted suicide, and the other is simply discontinuing medical treatment.

Patients have always had the right to refuse what my colleague refers to as punishing medical treatment that may prolong their lives. I wonder if my colleague would clarify that this was not his intent, and that, in fact, patients have always had the right to refuse medical treatment that would extend their lives unnecessarily or, as people say, “It's okay to pull the plug”.

These are issues that we have dealt with for many years. That is not the issue that we are talking about today. I am concerned that this kind of language is creating some confusion on the part of people who may think we simply want to extend life at all costs with whatever medications are necessary, or with medical procedures that may go beyond what the patient requests.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the work he has done on palliative care. I was honoured to support the motion he presented to the House last year. It was an honour to work across Parliament, across partisan lines, to facilitate the report “Not to be Forgotten”, which includes many recommendations. I am proud to say that a number of those recommendations have been completely or partially implemented, but we have a long way to go.

I am concerned as well about the potential legal vacuum that could exist if we do nothing. However, I have pointed out in my comments that there are at least three key amendments that the legislation needs if it is in any way going to resemble what I think are adequate safeguards for vulnerable people. Those include that vulnerable Canadians need better protection with a system of judicial oversight. It is fine to say that there are two medical doctors, two independent witnesses, and yet no way of actually asserting that those are in fact independent.

Another one is health care protection for conscience of health care workers. It would be totally inappropriate for an institution that was set up to improve end-of-life care and to walk with patients through that end-of-life natural process to demand that they go diametrically opposite to the principles under which they were founded and now have to participate in physician hastened death.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is also passionate about life.

It is clear that there was a very short timeline for the committee to hear witnesses, take all of that input and come up with a report to give to the government, and then the government to craft legislation. Now we are under a very strict timeline, even in terms of debate in the House. The justice committee itself will be under an extremely short timeline. It is clear to me that we do not have adequate time to give this serious topic the serious consideration it really needs.

Whether the government wants to invoke the notwithstanding clause or not, I will not suggest that. It certainly would be one option. What I do know is that by rushing ahead the way we are at this point, we will not have the kind of law Canadians deserve.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the honour of serving the people of Kitchener—Conestoga and being part of many important discussions and debates here in this chamber over the past 10 years. As members of Parliament, we are given the solemn obligation to chart the way forward for our great nation of Canada. The motions we table, the amendments we consider, the legislation we adopt will always impact, positively or negatively, the very people who elected us to represent them in the capital city of our nation, and they will also impact generations of Canadians to follow.

The impact of our deliberations and decisions we make on this critical life and death issue will impact the very fabric of our country. If I may say, it will leave a lasting legacy for good or for ill of our understanding of what it means to part of the human family.

Because of the very serious nature of the topic in front of us today, we, and by that I mean every member of this chamber, must take a step back and consider some very foundational questions. Each of us needs to ask ourselves these difficult questions. How we as members perceive these foundational issues is absolutely key to addressing this sobering topic before us today.

Consider with me for the next few moments these questions. What does it mean to be human? What gives human life meaning and value? Does every human life possess intrinsic value and dignity, regardless of perceived deformity, regardless of perceived disability, regardless of the perception of being a burden, regardless of whether or not a person may have achieved their best before date?

For me, the answer to all these questions is a resounding yes. Every human life is worthy of our utmost respect and protection. Every human life matters. Therefore, needless to say, I do not support physician-assisted suicide, or voluntary euthanasia or any legislation that would further devalue human life.

My world view is influenced by my life experiences, and most profoundly it has been shaped by my faith. I believe every human life has intrinsic value and dignity that needs to be held in high honour and esteemed, in other words, to be considered worthy.

There is a saying in the Talmud, “Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.”

On the Peace Tower of our Parliament Buildings carved in stone above the west window, members will find these words taken from ancient Hebrew writings in the book of Proverbs, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”

What is our vision for Canada? I ask each of my colleagues today what their vision is for Canada.

My vision for Canada is one where every human life is valued and cherished from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death. It is my firm belief that life is a gift from God and that this gift is far too precious to be discarded or destroyed. Every human life is filled with infinite value and, yes, every person, regardless of disability, deformity, depression, or devaluation based on criteria of so-called “usefulness” has something to teach us about what it means to be human.

For those who are suffering, we have the privilege to come alongside and care deeply. We provide proper pain relief, palliative care, human touch and love, in other words, we provide compassion.

The very meaning of the word compassion is “to suffer with”. It is to come alongside and enter into the suffering, to come alongside with feeling and care. Compassion is supporting them. It is to ignore the fact that compassion has everything to do with relationships if we are to allow physician-assisted suicide. We simply cannot have compassion if the relationship has been intentionally terminated.

That being said, the Supreme Court of Canada has established grounds for an exemption from prosecution for physicians who would assist in administering the suicide dose or carry out the act of euthanasia. The Supreme Court of Canada has done this, completely rejecting the fact that the elected members of the House of Commons have rejected initiatives to legalize physician-assisted suicide on at least 15 occasions since 1991. Most recently, a bill to allow physician-assisted suicide was rejected in 2010 by a vote of 59 to 226. My contention is that it is not the job of the Supreme Court to create laws but rather to interpret them.

I was one of the members of Parliament who served on the joint committee appointed to study physician-assisted dying. Our committee heard from many witnesses representing many different viewpoints. We heard from medical professionals, palliative care experts, mental health professionals, the disability community, the aboriginal community, various faith communities, legal and constitutional experts, and ethicists. As members might expect, from such a large variety of people, there was a very diverse response.

The unfortunate reality is that the timeline given to our committee for the completion of our report and recommendations did not allow for the large number of groups who wanted to appear before this committee. Groups like the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, L'Arche Canada, Living with Dignity, as well as Dr. Balfour Mount, who is considered to be the father of palliative care in Canada and in fact in North America, were not allowed to appear at all.

The joint committee report had no teeth when it came to insisting that before physician-assisted suicide could be offered or even considered in Canada, there should at the very least be a credible offer of accessible and affordable palliative care to those who faced such a final solution of hastened death. Like the committee report, Bill C-14 fails miserably in stepping up with real change on this crucial issue.

Dr. Harvey Chochinov, chair of the external panel, professor of psychiatry at the University of Manitoba, and Canada research chair for palliative care, suggests that all patients requesting medical aid in dying would need to have a palliative care consultation to ensure that patients would be fully informed of all palliative care options that could be initiated in order to mitigate the suffering of patients. To ignore the very real lack of choice without a concurrent real offer of palliative care is to offer no choice, only hastened death.

I am thankful that Bill C-14 has incorporated many of the viewpoints of the dissenting report. However, it still includes very vague and subjective language and does not address many key issues raised by witnesses who appeared before the joint committee.

A major concern in this entire discussion has been the overt attempts to soften the language. Rather than call it physician-assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, it was then referred to as physician-assisted dying. Even physicians objected vigorously to the term “physician-assisted dying”, especially palliative care physicians. For many decades these doctors have been assisting patients through the natural dying process.

It has been said that all social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering. We will find no better example of that verbal engineering than in the matter before us today. This topic is far too important to allow this vague and euphemistic language to go unchallenged. As Dr. Chochinov notes, Bill C-14 makes no distinction between physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, yet both are included in what the bill calls “medical assistance in dying”. It is extremely important to outline the difference, because international experience reveals that they are vastly different in terms of their uptake and lethality. In jurisdictions that offer only physician-assisted suicide, such as Oregon, these deaths account for about 0.3% of all deaths. In jurisdictions that offer euthanasia, hastened death accounts for approximately 3.0%, a tenfold increase.

If we were to extrapolate these figures to Canada where there are approximately 260,000 deaths per year, under a physician-assisted suicide regime, there would be approximately 780 deaths per year. However, if we were to extrapolate that to allow for euthanasia, the number of deaths would increase to 7,800 per year, which as I pointed out is a tenfold increase. The reason for the lower numbers under a physician-assisted suicide regime is ambivalence. It is crucial that at the very least the government needs to point out that if we are to proceed with this, we have to ask that those who request physician-assisted death must follow through on physician-assisted death rather than voluntary euthanasia because the numbers are so different.

Another key missing component is the matter of conscience protection for doctors and health care workers. If it is possible to ensure a “consistent approach to medical assistance in dying”, as the preamble asserts, there is no reason why at the same time a consistent approach to guarantee conscience rights cannot be included in Bill C-14.

Finally, Bill C-14 should include a system of judicial oversight in order to protect vulnerable persons. While two independent witnesses and two independent doctors sounds good on paper, the risks of overt or subtle coercion are too great and the possibility of abuse too real. These assertions need to be verified under a framework of legal oversight.

In summary, we should be offering hope to all Canadians. As legislators, we should be doing everything in our power to ensure that not one single person dies needlessly. It is with this in mind that I repeat the need for at least three major amendments to Bill C-14: first, vulnerable Canadians need better protection with a system of judicial oversight; second, doctors, health care personnel and institutions need clear conscience protection; and, finally, Canadians who are suffering need a real option of palliative care not hastened death.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, April 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, on March 27, 2012, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, the current minister, stated:

Respecting the law means protecting the Montreal, Mississauga and Winnipeg centres. That is clear.

Will the government let this debate continue long enough to give our minister time to tell the Montreal workers why he has flip-flopped on this issue? While he is at it, maybe he could ask the member for Winnipeg North to explain why he has flip-flopped on process.

[Health, April 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, by international standards, Canada has fewer doctors specializing in palliative care than countries such as the U.S. or Australia. The Liberal government promised to support palliative care, but there was no word of it in the 2016 budget or in the latest legislation.

How can the Liberal government, in good conscience, open up physician-assisted suicide when palliative care is not available to the large majority of Canadians who need it?

[Canadian Organ Donor Registry Act, April 15th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-223, an act to establish the Canadian Organ Donor Registry and to coordinate and promote organ donation throughout Canada.

This is monumental legislation and I am very proud of my colleague, the member for Edmonton Manning, for introducing it, as it will absolutely save lives.

My comments this afternoon will come from a different perspective than most of those who will have the opportunity to speak to the legislation. I do not presume to be an expert on organ transplant issues. Therefore, I ask the indulgence and patience of my colleagues as I share some of my personal journey over the past several years, some of whom may already know it.

On the May 2, 2011 election night, as my wife Betty and I were watching the early results of the election along with a campaign volunteer, Betty suddenly experienced a headache. Within seconds she collapsed to the floor. While she was breathing normally and had a strong pulse, there was no response. Minutes later, following a 911 call, local volunteer firefighters from the New Dundee detachment were on the scene to provide assistance. They were followed very closely by EMS personnel.

Betty was taken by ambulance to Grand River Hospital, placed on life support, and immediately transferred to a major health centre for more specialized care. ICU personnel and surgical specialists cared for her. They explained in some detail that Betty had experienced a spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage and that in spite of surgical intervention attempting to stop the bleeding, their best efforts had been unsuccessful. The intense bleeding had applied extreme pressure to sensitive brain tissue and brain function had ceased.

After consultation with neurosurgeons and ICU doctors regarding Betty's neurological death, we now were faced with the question of the possibility of organ and tissue donation. We were then introduced to a team of very compassionate personnel representing the Trillium Gift of Life Network. They presented the options to us and provided the answers to all of the questions that were raised by me and my three adult children. There was no doubt in our mind as to what Betty would want to do. We knew that she would want to continue giving in the same spirit of generosity in her death as she had always done in her life.

Betty and I had also discussed this issue openly each time we renewed our driver's licence, and had always both agreed that should anything ever happen to either of us we would be open to the question of organ donation. We would want to help in that way.

As I reflect on the difficult journey of our grief during that difficult time, that journey of grief has been made less difficult by two key factors: first, our personal faith journey as followers of Jesus Christ, and our confidence in the resurrection and the certain hope that he gives us; and, second, our decision to follow through on Betty's wish that upon her death, if possible, her organs be donated.

Why not help out one of those thousands of people who are currently on the waiting list for a specific organ? Many of those who are waiting are still in the prime of life, and organ donation can make the difference between life and death. Our decision, while not easy, was made somewhat lighter knowing that someone else would possibly receive the gift of life, even as we journeyed into our own grief and loss.

As an aside, on a technical note, let me assure members of the House and Canadians that we can rely on the safety of organ transplants in our country. This is because of Canada's strong organ transplant community, and Health Canada's work in establishing rigorous safety standards and requirements through the implementation of the safety of human cells, tissue and organs for transplantation regulations.

In the years and months following Betty's death, the Trillium Gift of Life Network followed up regularly with letters of support, offering access to resources, and letting me know of the health status of the organ recipients. Five people had received the gift of life through organs that were transplanted: heart, liver, lungs, and two separate kidney recipients. In addition, others have benefited from the gift of her eyes, bone, and muscle tissue, which will aid in the transplant process. I know that because of our decision to donate, there are now at least five people enjoying fuller, richer lives, and even more who are benefiting from tissue transplants.

We are in a death-denying society. No one wants to think he or she will die before 80 or 90. Because of amazing medical advancements, many people will live to that age, and even beyond. However, we have no guarantee, as my family discovered so quickly, and with no advance warning of any kind. We know that 4,000 Canadians are waiting for organ donation at any given period.

In Ontario alone, more than 1,500 people are waiting for a life-giving transplant. More than 1,000 of those people are waiting for a kidney transplant.

It is easy to register one's intention to donate. In Ontario, one can simply go to the website beadonor.ca. Elsewhere in Canada, one can go to www.transplant.ca.

Right now, only 20% of Ontario's residents have registered their intent to be an organ or tissue donor. Why not go online right now and register?

In addition to registering, it is important for individuals to discuss this matter with their families. They should let their families know their decision and then register at beadonor.ca. This decision could very well save a life and offer hope.

Thousands of adults and children are counting on us and our fellow Canadians to give the gift of life. It is time that we as a nation closed the gap between the need for life-saving and life-enhancing organs and the supply of organs that are available. Why not take steps now to make a difference? It could be anyone: a son, a daughter, or a granddaughter who will be the recipient of our or someone else's good decision to register to donate our organs.

I think all my colleagues will understand why I seconded this fantastic initiative by my colleague. It really is unacceptable that 200 Canadians die each year waiting for an organ transplant when only 20% of Canadians are registered.

Canada needs a national initiative that raises organ donation awareness and encourages people to register to be a donor.

As I said at the beginning of my talk, a Canadian organ donor registry would save lives, and I am hopeful that all parties in this House will unanimously support this extremely important legislation.

Let me just add that I ask the government not to hide behind potential jurisdictional challenges and to support Bill C-223.