Hedy Fry

[Broadcasting Act, November 19th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I know how our Prime Minister feels about Bill 101, and I am not here to talk about that right now.

In our Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister said very clearly that the Government of Canada has a responsibility to ensure the French language inside and outside of Quebec is promoted, and it is assured we are going to tell the stories outside and inside Quebec. This is something that we—

[Broadcasting Act, November 19th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question the hon. member is asking. In fact, in our 2017 House of Commons heritage report, we pointed out that level playing field with regard to GST and HST being levelled against Canadian media and Canadian content, and not being levelled against the Internet giants.

This bill will be going to committee, and there will be an opportunity for people to talk about levelling the playing field. However, when we brought it forward at the committee, it was very clear that the Conservative Party was spreading the rumour that we were taxing people.

We are talking about levelling the playing field. It could mean removing taxes Canadian media has to pay. We could talk about increasing the taxes on international media. I do not know, but I agree with the member about taxation. I think it is an important piece that we have to look at, because it gives the international giants a 15% advantage over Canadian media.

[Broadcasting Act, November 19th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say that I am not concerned.

Specifically this bill, as the member would understand if he had read it carefully, does not apply to the mom-and-pops or the guy in his mother's garage doing whatever they need to do. This applies to international megabusinesses that are making money by entering everyone's homes without any regulation whatsoever. We are talking about Google. We are talking about Facebook. We are not talking about me making a dance video in my living room tomorrow morning, which I intend to do. We are not talking about those things.

We are talking about regulating groups that are making billions of dollars by using other people's intellectual property—

[Broadcasting Act, November 19th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

I am happy to speak to this particular bill because it would really bring us into the 21st century. As everyone has said, it was in 1991 that we amended the Broadcasting Act and we have done nothing about it since, so I am happy to speak to this amendment of the Broadcasting Act.

In 1991, we were in a predigital era. From 1991 until now, we have seen a change in how people access information and entertainment. It is through streaming on their own devices, iPads, computers or whatever. They are not accessing it the usual way anymore, so we need to get in tune with the times and move this forward.

At the same time, we have heard since 1991 from Senate committees, House of Commons committees, independent panels, and the media and cultural sectors that it is an important time for us to recognize that, while we have certain rules for Canadian media and entertainment, we do not have the same rules for the Internet giants from the United States and internationally that enter our homes every day through these various devices and are not regulated.

They have shown that they do not wish to self-regulate. They have been asked to self-regulate and they have shown they will not do that, so it is time to regulate them because we regulate Canadian content, Canadian broadcasting, Canadian news, everything about Canadian media. Therefore, Canadian media is at a total disadvantage when we look at the unregulated international media. This is not something we are doing just because we are Canadians and want to be parochial. It is not.

The European Union is saying it needs to maintain European cultural content. Australia is saying it needs to look at Australian cultural content. Everyone is concerned about the disinformation that is unregulated and spread by international giants. Our own Canadian media have to be careful about how they process information, what they say and how they say it, because they are subject to CRTC rules on this issue. We are bringing everything down to what I call “levelling the playing field”.

One of the important things about this is that 1997 was the last time Sheila Copps decided to go to bat for Canadian content, when she looked at how magazines coming into Canada were giving us news from the United States and everywhere else, but very little Canadian news. Journalism is under stress right now because we are not getting a lot of Canadian news from our own journalists as they are being laid off rapidly. Therefore, we are getting the news from international news aggregators, such as Google and Facebook, that are taking everybody else's news from whatever source, not necessarily a source that is regulated for the veracity of its content. They are taking it from anywhere, they are aggregating it, people are reading it and they do not know what is true or what is misinformation or disinformation.

By not regulating themselves, these Internet giants are also not following rules on things like hate content or looking at the content that is spread that is very dangerous and harmful, yet our Canadian media have to follow all these rules. We are bringing this up to scratch so that we are on a level playing field.

It is also important that when Sheila Copps in the 1990s talked about Canadian content, she also looked at how she could protect the music sector. She got a lot of flak for it, but it worked out to be exactly what we needed. People were buying blank tapes, downloading everybody's music and playing it without having to pay a charge, so she added a surtax on the buying of blank tapes. That money went into a pot so that we could create what later turned out to be a great time for Canadian music. It began to be spread around the world. We saw that the divas were mostly Canadian. We saw all of this happening.

It is time we stand up not only for Canadian content but for Canadian cultural sovereignty.

We also want to reflect that Canadian culture is very diverse. It is a culture made up of official bilingualism, of French within and outside of Quebec. The government said clearly in the throne speech that it is going to protect that. We have indigenous cultures, which are so rich. We have many ethnic and racialized cultures, along with LGBTQ voices. We know, geographically, the Atlantic provinces' cultural content is very different from B.C.'s. We need to get to know each other as Canadians. We need to understand each other's stories, hear them and tell them.

What I always hear from Canadian creators is that they are actually out there writing stories, etc., and it is being pilfered by other people. They are not getting any kind of reimbursement for their intellectual property. Let us talk about how we are going to reimburse Canadian intellectual property. Let us talk about how we are levelling the playing field. That is what this bill is doing.

It is not a nefarious bill. Nobody is saying that people will not have the opportunity to stream what they want. All we are saying is that the CRTC has required that Canadian entertainment must have up to 45% of its production as Canadian content. They must put money into creating that. However, we have not said this for all of the other media content we get from media giants, which are making a lot of money from Canadian content and not reimbursing that to Canadians and not reflecting the diversity of Canadian life and Canadian regionality. We do not want this in a global world.

Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, from UNESCO, said something about this back in the late 1990s. He said that globalization has one flaw to it: that the world is now in some kind of amorphous culture and we are losing a sense of our own sovereignty, our own cultural identities.

Europe has taken a step to make sure that is not going to happen. It is doing something similar to what we are doing. Australia has also taken steps to ensure this. We do not want Canadian media to be under certain restrictions and regulations, and then have international media giants spreading information, disinformation, hate and all kinds of inappropriate things on the Internet, which we cannot regulate.

This is a good time. The idea that we could get money and that they are required, like Canadian media, to put money into creating Canadian content is something that our creators need. Our music industry needs this. All of that wonderful intellectual property needs this.

Nobody has to tell us, as Canadians, what great storytellers we are, what great writers we have, what fabulous producers or content we have. We can just look at Schitt's Creek and see it has become a major piece of Canadian storytelling and Canadian comedic acting.

We need to protect that, but more than anything else, we need to level the playing field. This is not asking the CRTC to do something nefarious. It is just asking them to make the same requirements and regulations for the international media giants, which do not have to follow any of these rules, and level the playing field for Canadian media.

They are also going to be required to contribute to Canadian content in the same way that Canadian media must do. We are also saying that they need to reflect the diversity of Canadian culture, which is very different from other international cultures. This is not something that is strange, big brother or anything like that. We are just trying to level the playing field. We are trying to give our Canadian content a break and make sure we tell and hear our own stories. This is important. The regulation of information is very important.

We look at all the panels, Senate committees and House of Commons committees, the last one being the committee I chaired that gave its report in 2017, which pointed out that we are not seeing ourselves in our own news, media and entertainment. We are not hearing indigenous voices or regional voices. We are not seeing the racialized, LGBTQ and ethnic groups within our country telling their stories.

We are unique as a nation. We are very different and we need to reflect that difference. Maybe other people streaming Canadian content out there in France, the United States or anywhere else might learn about who we are as Canadians. They might actually be inspired by some of the things we can do and say—

[Women and Gender Equality, November 2nd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, it has recently come to public attention that the Conservative Party is paying for anti-abortion advertising on Vancouver public transit. Women's History Month ended on Saturday. It is disheartening to see the official opposition actively attempt to limit the reproductive rights of Canadian women.

The Leader of the Opposition claims to be a defender of the rights of Canadians, yet he continues to support the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington and many others in his caucus who deny a woman's right to choose what happens to her body. The opposition leader must remove these ads today and defend the rights of Canadian women.

[Criminal Code, October 21st, 2020]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question. Here is why an advance directive is important. If the father would have had an advance directive written with his physician as a doctor-patient written directive, then no one would be able to overturn it. However, this physician obviously felt he knew better and overruled the patient's desire to die with dignity. He felt he knew better than what the patient wanted. I do not accept that as reasonable at all.

[Criminal Code, October 21st, 2020]

Madam Speaker, many medical practitioners are concerned about the inequity of access in rural communities and isolated communities. However, we now have telemedicine and the ability to reach out to get an opinion from a person who has expertise in the condition. That can go on for a period of time so that a patient can have access to the kinds of decisions that can be made with telemedicine. People living in rural areas can have access to tertiary care in big cities, for instance, where they have university hospitals, etc.

I think the bill is saying that we must have that happen and that it can happen. I hope we continue to expand telemedicine and that kind of equitable access for people who live in parts of Canada where they cannot get access as readily as those of us who live in cities.

[Criminal Code, October 21st, 2020]

Madam Speaker, that is a very thoughtful question. One thing we must understand is that palliative care is for people who are terminally ill and whose death is foreseeable. They know they are going to die from a terminal disease. However, this bill is also about the Carter decision by the Supreme Court. It is for people who are not in danger of dying but who are suffering intractable pain from an incurable disease. Let us not mix up those two things.

For people who are dying and are terminally ill, absolutely palliative care is at the heart of this. People need to know that they do not have to be in absolute pain and suffering and that they can die with dignity. I support palliative care completely and totally, and I think this bill speaks to the idea that people can die in palliative care in their home and in some of those areas—

[Criminal Code, October 21st, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to speak to this bill, Bill C-7, in its current form, mostly because I did not support the original bill, Bill C-14, from four years ago. I did not support it because I felt that it did not reflect the intent of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in Carter. I also felt, as a family physician who practised medicine for 20 years, that it did not act in the best interest of my patients.

As a family physician, I walked with my patients through many things: through the joys of having a baby, of giving birth and of marriage, but also through the difficult, challenging and painful times when they struggled with excruciating incurable diseases and with knowing they were going to die because of a terminal illness. They had to work with their families, who may or may not have wanted them to go through with this. I held their hand and walked with them, so this bill has a very personal meaning. That is why I am pleased to speak to it now.

I like the bill in this form in many ways, though there are a couple of things that have not happened in it that I would like to see. The first thing I am pleased with is that it removes the clause saying natural death has to be reasonably foreseeable. It was very difficult for physicians to understand what exactly that meant. If the clause meant only people who were going to die soon, it did not reflect the Carter decision by the Supreme Court, because it did not look at issues of incurable disease or intractable pain and suffering. This bill addresses that, I think, in that it is distinguishing what we mean by natural death becoming reasonably foreseeable. In other words, I think it recognizes that if a natural death, because of a disease or a terminal illness, is going to be foreseeable within maybe a week or two, then a person does not need to go through the 10-day reflection period that was asked for earlier on. However, if it is a longer period of time, maybe four months or so, a person can continue to reflect on whether this is what they really need.

I also like that it has brought back something called advance directives. It is interesting to note that long before medical assistance in dying was considered, physicians had advance directives. This is at the heart of a doctor-patient relationship. They would sit down with patients and go through all of the things patients faced and their concerns, especially if they were diagnosed with a serious and terminal illness, and they would say what they would like to do if something happened. That would be in writing, between the doctor and the patient. I was present when families of patients who were dying, in great pain and suffering and under the deep stress of this, would debate the decisions they had made earlier with their physician. Putting this back in means that we are respecting patients' desires. Regardless of their mental capacity at the time of their dying, we are respecting what they originally wanted, if they still want it, not having other people rule on their decision.

Inherent in everything I dealt with regarding patients who were terminally ill or had an intractable and incurable disease is that they wanted to die with dignity. Dying with dignity cannot be understated. Dying with dignity means that people can choose how they die, where they die and the manner in which they live with the suffering of dying and the mental anguish of leaving their loved ones. This is a deeply personal thing that patients face. It is impacted by their religion, it is impacted by their ethics and it is impacted by their family situation. It therefore has to be done on a case-by-case basis, and having an advanced directive with a physician is always a really important thing in that regard. That had been removed in the last bill and I am glad to see it back. It took the decision away from the patient and gave it to the state, at the end of the day, and now it is back with the patient.

I want to applaud the inherent compassion I see in this bill. I think it is really important. The deeply held desire of every single patient I knew, regardless of whether they chose to have medical assistance in dying or not, was the ability to die with dignity. The patient's ability to choose where they die is really important. Do they want to die at home in bed? Do they want to die in a palliative care unit, where they have become accustomed to spending their last days? Do they want to die in a hospital? Most patients do not want to die in a hospital. They want to be surrounded by their loved ones.

The government is giving $6 billion to provide home and palliative care resources to the provinces, because it is the responsibility of provinces. They can facilitate this deeply held desire to die with dignity and help patients make this choice at a time when the ability to do so is often impacted by extreme pain and suffering and the extreme mental anguish of knowing they have to leave their loved ones. It simplifies this in a great way, and that is a compassionate thing.

There are some areas that can be improved, and one of them is the singling out of mental illness and disability as a sole diagnosis. I agree with everyone who has spoken in the House today, and with the desire of a lot people, to recognize that mentally ill people should not be put away and should not be allowed to simply decide they want to pass on because the people they live with think they are a burden. It is really important to also look at this from the perspective of the disabled.

I know the minister has taken a lot of time to speak with the disability community and physicians. This government is committed to dealing with mental health and illness. My colleague from the Conservative Party told a very moving story earlier about a particular woman who was contemplating suicide. Giving people options when they are depressed or disabled that let them know there are other options for them, that there is a better life available to them, is inherent to this bill.

The minister is going to look at this aspect and consult broadly with the disability community once again as he is looking at the legislative parts of the bill and the regulations. This is really important. Remember, if we single out mental illness and disability as a sole diagnosis, we may be contravening section 15 of the charter. It assumes that, because someone has a mental illness or is disabled, they do not have the right to make a decision regarding their own life and pain and suffering, whether it be mental or not. The idea that this issue will be addressed in work with the provinces, health care providers and the disability community is really important. The safeguards will be worked out. I will be really clearly involved in making sure they are worked out so they can be put into place to protect mentally ill people and people who are disabled.

I want to quote Justice Baudouin in the Truchon decision: “The vulnerability of a person requesting medical assistance in dying must be assessed exclusively on a case-by-case basis, according to the characteristics of the person and not based on a reference group of so-called ‘vulnerable persons’.” Justice Baudouin also added that the patient’s ability to understand and consent should ultimately be the deciding factor with a physician, along with looking at all of the legal criteria.

Those safeguards must be in place, but we should not assume we can make decisions for people who, because of mental illness and disability, may wish to get medical assistance in dying. Intractable pain and suffering is not merely physical; it can also be mental. With the help of good psychiatrists and good support systems, we will be able to put those safeguards in place.

This bill has come a long way in rectifying many concerns that some medical practitioners have raised. It is important that it respects the right of a medical practitioner or a health care provider to use their own ethics and religion to decide whether they wish to perform medical assistance in dying or not. I am—

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 5th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member does not even understand the opioid crisis. It is a very complex issue. It is linked with mental health problems, homelessness, poverty and intergenerational trauma. We do not fix it with a silver bullet. This government has been working with provinces since we formed government. We have been helping them with the ability to have access to naloxone universally. We have been helping them with forming front-line workers to be able to work in the communities. We are now in our second year of making sure that there are safe supplies available, and this is because, after 10 years—