Jane Philpott

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member was aware, as I believe he was here in the House very recently when our Prime Minister issued an unreserved apology around the unfortunate incident that took place last evening. That was the appropriate action.

I want to also commend those who have suggested that this matter be sent to the appropriate committee to deal with it on a further basis and to make appropriate actions. I look forward to hearing about the work of that committee.

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for echoing my remarks about the very positive tone that we have had in this House on a number of occasions. I think it has set a good standard for us, a standard that hopefully we can learn to aspire to on a daily basis.

I look forward to hearing the hon. member's speech. I agree with her that we need to move forward as quickly as possible to discuss the important matter of Bill C-14. I will remind the hon. member that we have already had, I believe close to 24 hours of debate on the matter of Bill C-14 in this House. I know that there are more comments to come. I have enjoyed many conversations with my colleagues on all sides of this House about the matter, and I hope that we will soon be able to resume that discussion.

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member's question raises for us is this matter that we have all been thinking a great deal about in the last day or so, which is the matter of decorum in the House. I believe this has been an important debate. It is a debate that has impressed upon each of us to take personal responsibility for our behaviour and our comments. It has impressed upon us the weighty business that we have at hand. I look forward to working with all members of this House to continue to ensure that we work in a manner that is both respectful and efficacious in this House.

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will abbreviate my further comments out of respect for my colleague. I simply want the House to understand, and to make a request, that we consider making wise decisions with respect to when it is appropriate for us to move on to debating the important legislation before us.

The only other point I want to add is that, on the one hand, I want to ensure that access is available and, on the other hand, we have a real responsibility to face that if that legislative framework is not in place in due time, there will not be adequate safeguards to protect Canadians.

I know that my colleagues opposite are concerned about that. I hope we can move forward on the debate of Bill C-14 as soon as possible, which I think is so important.

I will respectfully respond to questions in very short order. I am thankful for this opportunity to speak.

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning.

As members may know, I arrived in this House just over six months ago, along with many members here, as a representative for the first time. I represent the wonderful riding of Markham—Stouffville. It is a great honour to have the opportunity that we all have to represent the people of our own constituencies.

In that six months, I have learned a great deal from colleagues around this House. I have learned a great deal about parliamentary procedure, and I continue to learn on that matter. I have been encouraged by the professionalism and the high level of debate and discussion on issues that are so fundamentally important to Canadians.

I think about the times that I have spent in this House in that short time. One of the outstanding memories is of the evening that we sat late into the night on an emergency debate about suicide and mental health issues in indigenous communities. I remember hearing members who were moved to tears as they spoke, and seeing other members who were moved to tears as they listened to the comments that were made from all sides of the House of Commons. That was a proud evening for us as Canadians. We have debated so much important legislation, and we know that the things we talk about and the decisions we make in this House will have a fundamental influence on the lives of Canadians.

This has been a particularly challenging week for us all. It has been a week full of emotion. I certainly have had a span of emotions myself. We have had some real struggles together, and we have debated some very serious issues. Every single day, we, as parliamentarians in this House, need to live up to the expectations and the responsibility that we have to the people of Canada, the people we represent. Every day, we are put to the test to meet that challenge in the best way we can.

Today, I heard our Prime Minister deliver sincere apologies for what transpired yesterday, and that was the right course of action. To the members who have been hurt by the incident, I want to empathize and express my sincere concern for them. I trust that any comments that I or others make today would never in any way diminish the feelings of hurt that they have expressed.

We all have different experiences that we bring to the table and to this position. As a result, we experience events in our own unique and personal ways. In my life, I have had the tremendous privilege of working as a family physician. I spent almost 10 years working in sub-Saharan Africa, and then over 17 years working as a family doctor here in Ontario. I have had the privilege of being with people in some of the most vulnerable moments of their lives. I have sat with people as they have been challenged with facing recovery from illness and disability. I have seen so much generosity and so much strength of spirit and human character.

I have seen those same kinds of qualities here in this House. I have seen strength of character. I have seen resilience. I have seen compassion. I hope that, for my part, I will always be able to remain respectful and to enter into that level of conversation with members of this House. I hope that fellow members here have felt that I have provided genuine answers to sometimes challenging questions to the best of my ability during question period, and that I have endeavoured to enter into meaningful debate on these substantive matters. I have attempted to do this with respect for my colleagues and with an attempt to avoid untoward language. I hope I have succeeded, but the evaluations of my colleagues and Canadians will be the evidence of that. This is how I will try to proceed in my role as a parliamentarian.

In the atmosphere of an emotional House of Commons that we are experiencing this week, I hope that we will all, as parliamentarians, reflect on and remember the millions of Canadians who are looking at our proceedings and who will review them. I recently had a conversation with one of my staff members, who recounted the experience he had watching question period with his 10-year-old son, a delightful young man whom I have met. His son said to him that they would never be allowed to talk that way in school. That was a striking comment to hear from a wise young man.

Regardless of what transpires in this chamber, each of us has the ability to manage our own conduct. We must hold ourselves to the highest standards, and I believe we are all going to try to do that. Some days are more challenging than others, but we need to remember that we are here to advance the interests of Canadians. We are here to wrestle with challenging issues. We are here to represent the voices and the diverse perspectives of our constituents.

There are some very important issues at hand that we are going to continue to focus on. We have one legislative bill that I have been particularly involved in that is before the House of Commons. It will continue to be a focus of mine for considerable time to come. We have a responsibility to ensure that we find the solutions to the challenges before us. I look forward to continuing dialogue with members on the work that we need to complete in very short order.

I am pleased that we are having this meaningful debate on an important issue right now. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues about their perspective on determining when it would be appropriate for us to move on to discussing other important matters in the House.

I have been thinking a lot about what our constituents expect of us. They expect us to lead in the House. They expect us to make important decisions and to make laws. We do that on the basis of representing the people who have elected us. We do that on the basis of consultation and seeking the very best scientific evidence we can find. We do it on the basis of sound judgment. I trust that our judgment will be deemed to be appropriate.

I want to specifically encourage members to consider some other work that we have before us in the days to come. I had the privilege of speaking to this in responding to questions yesterday, about why I believe it is so important that we try, as soon as is deemed appropriate, for us to move on to discussing the matter of Bill C-14. This is a matter that I have been deeply involved in and for which we have been under a deadline, a deadline that has put us all in a challenging situation.

The Supreme Court of Canada has asked us, the representatives of the people of Canada in the House, to put an appropriate legislative framework in place around medical assistance in dying. It has been a challenging task, and we have had to do it in a short time period. My concern is that we must meet that deadline if it is at all possible. The reason I am concerned is because we need to make sure that Canadians will have access to medical assistance in dying, as the Supreme Court has made clear that they should. If we do not have a legislative framework in place, my colleagues who are health professionals have expressed to me their concern that there would be very few medical practitioners and nurse practitioners who feel they have the appropriate framework in place to participate in medical assistance in dying.

[Criminal Code, May 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have already alluded to the fact that it is unfortunate that the debate on this did not begin in February 2015. Instead, we find ourselves in a situation where we are facing a very serious deadline.

I would agree with my hon. colleague that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will be dealing with in this session. Because of that, it is very important that we have legislation that is appropriate for Canada for now. We recognize there is a wide range of opinions, even in the House. Many people wish we did not have this legislation at all and many people wish the legislation went much further. We have found an approach that is right for Canadians.

However, I want to point out for my hon. colleague that we have made it very clear within the legislation itself that the day this bill is passed we will address some of those more thorny and difficult issues. I have heard loud and clear from my colleagues about their interest in discussing the matter of advanced directives. That is perhaps the most common question I have been asked. We are prepared to look at that.

As with any other legislation in the House, we expect there will be further amendments. However, we have to get the initial legislation passed by June 6.

[Criminal Code, May 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. colleague will find that I will always treat him with the utmost respect, as he always treats me. I thank him for all of his outstanding work as the critic for health for his party. I look forward to many further conversations with him.

As my hon. colleague knows, I am not a lawyer. However, my understanding of the Carter decision, as I have read it and discussed it with legal colleagues, is that it is based on two specific cases. It uses the term “grievous and irremediable”. It very specifically makes the point that it does not presume to make a decision on behalf of all Canadians. Rather, it presumes to make a decision on behalf of those specific cases. I understand that within the House, and across Canada, there are various interpretations about what the implications of that are for terminal conditions.

I am aware of the decision that was made in Alberta yesterday. That decision specifically said that it was not a commentary about the charter or Bill C-14. Rather, it was a commentary about a specific case and whether it met the criteria for exemption that had been set out in this interim period. It is because of that case and the fact that we have not developed safeguards for terminality in medical assistance in dying that enforces for us why it is important we get this in place. There is very clear solid evidence that the number of physicians who are prepared to provide medical assistance in dying drops considerably with respect to non-terminal cases, and where mental illness is involved, it is even more unlikely physicians will be willing to participate.

It is a very serious matter. I look forward to further discussion and debate on this. We fundamentally believe the legislation is the right legislation for Canada.

[Criminal Code, May 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my hon. colleague has participated in some of the committee debate that has taken place, and has recommended some suggestions related to this legislation. I want to thank her for her thoughtfulness in participating in this.

The committee process, as my hon. colleague is aware, was an effective process. Sixteen amendments were agreed upon, several of them with all-party support. I believe there have been opportunities on several occasions in the House, in the committee process, and with the special parliamentary committee to ensure there was an abundance of opportunities for all members of the House to contribute.

We will continue to work on this legislation. I hope we will meet the deadline of June 6 and this legislation will be passed. We are firmly committed that once the legislation is passed, the next chapter begins, that we will look at those difficult questions around mature minors, around advance directives, around the matter of palliative care. There are many other matters, such as patients with mental illness, which is a very serious one. There are many unanswered questions. This legislation will be assessed. I suspect we will be discussing it for decades to come.

[Criminal Code, May 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his reminder of this very important fact. I want to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for their work in trying to find ways to address this crunch we are facing, the fact that we do have a deadline.

I know the House leader and his parliamentary secretary have worked with the other House leaders to try to find a way that we can extend hours. It has been very generous of them to offer that opportunity of extending hours late into the night. I am disappointed that they were unable to find consensus with the other House leaders to make this available. I hope those members who are disappointed about the lack of opportunity to address this bill will speak to their appropriate House leaders on this matter.

[Criminal Code, May 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Once again, I want to remind my colleague, and as I alluded to earlier, that the Quebec situation is very different from the situation we face today.

The topic had been discussed in Quebec for a number of years. The Government of Quebec was not facing a deadline by which time it had to put legislation in place. It put in place legislation which, I understand, is working extremely well. For that, I congratulate the Quebec government. It is legislation that is in some respects narrower than the legislation we have put in place, and that perhaps is an acknowledgement of the fact that the views of Canadians and the consultations have allowed us to take further steps on this matter in recent times.

I remind the member opposite that we, unfortunately, do not have the luxury that the Government of Quebec had. We are facing a very important deadline. I have serious reservations about what will happen if we do not meet that deadline. On one hand, I worry about the fact that Canadians will not be able to appropriately access medical assistance in dying for fear the health care providers do not feel they have a protective framework in place. On the other hand, it is important, and I have not had an opportunity to mention this yet, there is very real concern that without a legislative framework in place, vulnerable Canadians will access assistance in dying when adequate safeguards are not in place, and that responsibility lies with us all.