Matt DeCourcey

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I think the best way I could reply is by explaining to my hon. colleague the advice that I have been given, again, from people in the medical community, people in the vulnerability community, and all those who have first-hand experience in trying to deal with end-of-life situations.

They have all impressed upon me the need for this Parliament to move with legislation that is caring, that is compassionate, that is smart, that recognizes in fact that the Supreme Court has already decided upon this issue, and that it is up to us as legislators, as parliamentarians, as leaders in our community, to come up with appropriate legislation that would best meet the collective interests of Canadians.

I cannot speak in specifics of what might happen, but I do know, in consultation with those who do have insight into vacuums in the legal and medical system, that it is not something we want to see here in Canada.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the aisle for his question, although I would caution him to advance with some modesty in the commentary he uses to talk about this sensitive issue.

As I explained, I did have the opportunity to consult with medical practitioners, with leading voices, about where they saw this legislation fitting into what we needed to accomplish as a government in response to Carter.

My general reflection of these conversations has been that the medical field is, by and large, comfortable. Of course there will be those who will not see this within their own world view, and that is where the flexibility in this legislation exists: to ensure we meet the rights of those adults who are suffering intolerably to access medical assistance in dying while also recognizing the conscience of practitioners who will be providing the service.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, with the Supreme Court's decision in Carter, Canadians were given notice that medical assistance in dying would effectively become legal in Canada. It was, hence, the responsibility of the government to put forward clear rules around who is eligible to obtain medical assistance in dying, what safeguards must be followed to protect vulnerable individuals, and to create a monitoring regime to ensure accountability, transparency, and public trust in the system. Federal legislation was also important to ensure that a consistent approach to medical assistance in dying would be available across Canada.

Bill C-14 is the result of extensive consultation over the past year with individuals, groups, and experts at home and abroad. It takes into account a range of interests, including personal autonomy and safeguards to protect the vulnerable. It also recognizes the diverse and personal ways in which individual Canadians arrive at the question of medical assistance in dying. It balances individual rights and informed conscience, and respects the professional ethics and conscience of physicians and medical practitioners.

This legislation also addresses and proposes broad action on an aspect of end-of-life care where Canadians, regardless of their views of medical assistance in dying, have clearly indicated that they want action, chiefly, palliative and hospice care. I had the pleasure yesterday to take part in Hike for Hospice in sunny Fredericton and I am proud of the overwhelming support demonstrated by community members for such a worthy and important cause.

As we address an issue as delicate as medical assistance in dying, we cannot act without a full and intentional movement toward expanding all options of end-of-life care. The government has made clear that as part of a multi-year health accord, financial resources to improve home care, including palliative care, will be of primary importance. Also, as we launch Mental Health Week today in Canada, we must recommit our efforts to providing greater care and support for those suffering from mental illness and deliver on clinical and community-based approaches that will allow greater access to mental well-being for Canadians who suffer from mental afflictions.

On December 11, a Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying was tasked with reviewing recent consultation activities. The committee also consulted with Canadians and stakeholders and made recommendations on the framework of a federal response to the Carter decision. The committee met 16 times, heard from 61 witnesses, received more than 100 briefs, and tabled its final report to Parliament on February 25.

I would like to extend my thanks for the work of the committee, as well as for the individual commitment demonstrated toward this issue from each and every committee member.

I, too, have heard from hundreds of people in the riding I represent, and have sought out wisdom and advice from leaders within the disability community who are calling for assurances that those with vulnerabilities will be safeguarded from outside influence in their personal decision-making; from the faith community, including trusted mentors and friends, who have encouraged me to reflect upon my own informed conscience in rendering a decision on this important matter; from the medical community, including leading voices, who have called for a sage and measured approach to the development of a framework around medical assistance in dying; and from those seeking a more liberalized approach, who may be dissatisfied with the framework that is proposed in front of us.

I have listened, I am listening, and I will continue to listen to people in the riding I represent. I have reflected, I am reflecting, and I will continue to reflect upon this important decision that will change the way Canadians consider end of life.

I approached this question like many others, with great humility, understanding that in a pluralistic society as rich and diverse as Canada's there will undoubtedly be those who feel that this legislation does not meet their world view. I wish to extend my empathy and understanding to them, and let them know that I, like all my colleagues, will continue to do my best for them.

I believe the ministers charged with crafting this legislation and the government as a whole have also approached this question with great sensitivity. The approach being taken is emblematic of a government that has listened to citizens, and will continue to listen to the wide diversity of opinion on this personal and challenging decision.

With this in mind, I wish to express my general comfort with the legislation before us. I would like to take the time to explain in greater depth the elements of the legislation and what it means for Canadians.

First, to allow access to medical assistance in dying in Canada, the Criminal Code would need to be amended so that doctors, nurse practitioners, and those who assist them can help eligible patients die without the risk of being charged with assisting a suicide or committing a homicide. There will also be safeguards to ensure that those who receive medical assistance in dying are eligible for it, can give their informed consent, and voluntarily requested assistance in dying.

A voluntary and informed request must be submitted in writing by the person in the presence of two independent witnesses, and a second medical opinion is required. No one aside from the person wishing to receive medical assistance in dying can make that voluntary request. This approach holds that the right to choose medical assistance in dying belongs only to the competent adult who would receive it. This is also necessary to protect vulnerable people.

A person who wants to access medical assistance in dying would have to meet the following criteria. They would have to be a mentally competent adult of 18 years or older. They would have to have a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability, be in an advanced state of irreversible decline of capability, and experience enduring and intolerable suffering as a result of their medical condition. They would, in effect, have to be on a course toward end of life. Death would have to be reasonably foreseeable.

The proposed legislation holds that mature minors would not be eligible nor would people suffering solely from a mental illness. The government is, however, proposing an independent study of the legal, medical, and ethical issues related to medical assistance in dying for mature minors, for those suffering from a mental illness, and around advance directives.

Again, the bill includes protections to ensure that patients are eligible and have given their informed consent. There would be a mandatory waiting period of at least 15 days, and patients could withdraw their consent at any time.

Also, there is nothing in the proposed legislation that would compel a health care provider to provide medical assistance in dying or to refer a patient to another practitioner.

The proposed approach to this most difficult of questions does its best to recognize individual choice for adults who are suffering intolerably and for whom death is reasonably foreseeable. It seeks to affirm the inherent and equal value of every person's life. It has the goal of protecting vulnerable people and reaffirms society's goal with regard to preventing suicide. It is an approach that recognizes where we are as a society and as a people advancing in the world. It is respectful of the divergent voices of Canadians and it demonstrates flexibility in its ability to reassess and examine the issue of medical assistance in dying in the weeks, months, and years to come.

I wish to thank my constituents who have reached out to me on this important matter and the many more who, I know, have wrestled with this question internally.

Know that this Parliament and I will do our collective best to serve each one's interests and those of their neighbours on this and on all important matters.

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's theme of hope. I would invite him to join me anytime on a Saturday morning in Fredericton at the Boyce farm to listen to my constituents talk about the hope they feel now that this government is installed and is using this budget to deliver on the commitments that were put forth in the election.

There is hope for young people who are starting out on careers that they will find employment opportunities. A middle-class tax cut will help them with their car payment or mortgage payment. It will help them invest in the economy. There is hope for seniors in my community, who will benefit from a 10% increase in the GIS for the lowest-income single seniors. There is hope for veterans who will see increases to their disability awards. Many more commitments will be followed through on, including an innovation agenda that will have a tremendous benefit to the universities in my riding, UNB and St. Thomas.

I wonder if the member opposite could talk a bit more about the hope that is being spread across the country by this budget.

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech given by my colleague opposite.

I recall being here, working on Parliament Hill in 2005-2006, when we left the former government with a huge surplus that it ran right through quickly. I was also here at the time when the Kelowna accord was struck, and I am so proud to see the reinvestment in indigenous communities right across the country, something that our former friend and colleague Andy Scott would be very proud of today.

I am also proud of our investment in innovation and the plan we will draw up for supporting universities and university graduates.

In my riding, the University of New Brunswick, Canada's most entrepreneurial university, and St. Thomas University will be able to take tremendous advantage of this. Also, the commitments that we have started to roll out for veterans are something else that is important in the community of Fredericton and Oromocto where CFB Gagetown is located.

I wonder if the member can speak about how those investments would really strengthen our country from coast to coast. Does she understand the impact that those sorts of investments have on ordinary persons right across the country?

[Antonia “Tony” Barry, April 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the life of Tony Barry. Affectionately known as Mother Superior of the New Brunswick Liberal Party, Tony passed away on April 3 at the age of 91.

Tony joined the New Brunswick Liberal Association in 1954 and quickly became a party fixture. She spent nearly 70 years leading, organizing, and advising party activities, working closely with six prime ministers, six premiers, and 17 party leaders.

Tony was fiercely committed to increasing women's representation in politics. The Tony Barry Fund assists women seeking election and party headquarters in Fredericton is known as Tony Barry House.

An accomplished athlete as well, she entered the New Brunswick Softball Hall of Fame in 2013. Her passion and dedication to community are surpassed only by the love and care she offered to family and friends.

We extend our thoughts to Cathy, Judy, Mike, Rick, and her entire family.

[Citizenship Act, March 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I do not mind raising this issue once again, about the importance of providing opportunities for international students who come to our communities to continue to help build these communities for years to come. Once again, I have many international students who arrive in the community of Fredericton who get involved on campus, get involved in the larger community, and can contribute so much to our entrepreneurial ecosystem in Fredericton and across New Brunswick.

I would ask my colleague to comment on what potential he sees through our re-instituting the part-time credit available to international students, as we help build a diverse and prosperous country.

[Citizenship Act, March 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague opposite on an eloquent recap of what is being presented in the bill. I had the honour to stand this morning and speak to one of the issues that I think is one of the best moves contained in the bill, and that is the renewal of half credit for international students who come to study at our world-class universities.

In the riding I have the honour to represent, I boast of two such universities, one of which, St. Thomas University, a small liberal arts leader, brings in hundreds of international students every year, who sometimes travel to Ottawa to see what is going on in Parliament above and beyond contributing to the broader community. Some of these students wish to stay in the community of Fredericton afterwards and continue to contribute to our socioeconomic wealth. I see it as a huge benefit in a place like New Brunswick that has an aging population.

Could my colleague comment on the contribution that international students can make to the other coast of Canada.

[Citizenship Act, March 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, New Brunswick is a place with an aging demographic that needs bright, young people with a wealth of skills and potential. I am so fortunate to know that these universities, which serve as welcoming points for newcomers to the community, can help foster that type of education and potential for the province.

At St. Thomas alone, a tiny liberal arts school, which I had the honour of graduating from and being an alumnus, upwards of 10% of the student population are international students. These people go on to become teachers, social workers, human rights leaders, and lawyers, to do the type of work needed to ensure there is a diverse community, not just in Fredericton, not just in New Brunswick, but right across the country.

[Citizenship Act, March 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

As the minister said yesterday, we are open to making constructive changes to the bill, just as we are open during the discussions that are held in Parliament, in the House, or in committees. That is how we want to work with the other parties in the House. If a good suggestion is made during committee meetings or in the House, the parliamentary secretary to the minister and all parliamentarians on this side of the House will be open to discussion.