Michael Cooper

[Criminal Code, April 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada for her thoughtful presentation this morning.

The issue of physician-assisted dying is one of the most important social issues that Canada has faced in some time. There is no question that physician-assisted dying will be one of the most important issues this Parliament must address.

I had the unique opportunity to give special attention to the issue of physician-assisted dying as a vice-chair of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying. The special joint committee had a very short time period to deal with a highly sensitive and complex issue. While I, along with my Conservative MP colleagues on the committee, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, the member for Langley—Aldergrove and the member for Kitchener—Conestoga, were not able to agree with all the recommendations in the main committee report, all members from all parties and in both Houses worked respectfully and in good faith to do what they believed was best for Canada and respectful of the law arising from the Carter decision.

I would particularly like to a acknowledge the hon. member for Don Valley West, who served ably as chair of the special joint committee.

The issue of physician-assisted dying raises many deep legal, moral and ethical questions. It is an issue that Canadians get very emotional about, and that is understandable. When we are talking about physician-assisted dying, we are talking about something that is probably the most important thing to any human being, living and dying, the right to live and the right to die.

It is not a new issue to Parliament. Indeed, over the last 25 or so years, this issue has come before Parliament 14 or 15 times. Each time Parliament was asked the question whether to legalize physician-assisted dying or not, Parliament chose not to. However, the issue of whether we should legalize physician-assisted dying or not is over, because the Supreme Court of Canada in Carter determined that physician-assisted dying was a charter right for certain Canadians.

While the Supreme Court recognized that physician-assisted dying was a charter right for certain Canadians, it is important to emphasize that the Supreme Court said that it was a charter right for certain Canadians. The Supreme Court did not say that physician-assisted dying was a charter right to anyone, any time, anywhere, under any circumstances in Canada. Rather, the court set out a clear set of parameters. More specifically, what the court determined was that competent adult persons who were suffering intolerably from a grievous and irremediable condition and who gave their clear consent, had a right under section 7 of the charter to physician-assisted dying.

In so deciding, the Supreme Court sought to strike a balance between respecting individual autonomy with the need to protect vulnerable persons. The Supreme Court was satisfied that balance could be achieved with what the court characterized at paragraph 105 of its decision as a system of carefully designed and monitored safeguards.

The test before Parliament is to find that balance in the way of a legislative response. As a starting point for a legislative response, it is important to look to the Carter decision. Does the legislation satisfy the parameters of Carter?

I am satisfied that the legislation does satisfy the general parameters of Carter in limiting physician-assisted dying to competent adult persons who are suffering from an incurable disease or illness, in an irreversible state of decline, and whose death is foreseeable.

That being said, I believe the legislation falls short in at least two regards at this present time. First, I am not satisfied that the legislation sufficiently protects vulnerable persons, persons particularly with underlying mental health challenges. Second, I am disappointed that the legislation does not contain provisions to protect the conscience rights of physicians and allied health professionals.

With respect to safeguards, it is true that the legislation limits physician-assisted dying to persons who are suffering from a physical illness, and make no mistake, that is a very important safeguard. That safeguard, by the way, is consistent with what the Supreme Court pronounced in holding that one had a right to physician-assisted dying in the context of an irremediable condition.

However, where the legislation falls short is that it does not take into account persons who have a physical illness on the one hand, but on the other hand, suffer from an underlying mental health challenge. Make no mistake about it; if people have underlying mental health challenges, are suffering from physical illnesses, and they meet all the criteria of Carter, they have a right to physician-assisted dying as does every other Canadian who meets that criteria. The issue is ensuring their capacity to consent.

In that regard, it is important to remember that the Supreme Court, as one of the key criterion in the parameters that it set out, said that individuals must give their clear consent. Now the evidence before the special joint committee is that physicians generally have the training and skill to diagnose someone with an underlying mental health challenge, to identify the underlying mental health challenge. However, to take the next step, to undertake the kind of complex analysis of determining capacity and consent, a significant amount of evidence said that any physician was not able to do it. Rather, someone with more specialized training such as a psychiatrist would be able to undertake that type of assessment.

I would respectfully submit that it would be an important improvement in the legislation to contain a safeguard to require a psychiatrist to undertake an evaluation of the patient who is determined to have an underlying mental health challenge to determine capacity to consent on a decision that is ultimately irreversible.

With respect to conscience protections, I am disappointed that there is no provision for conscience protections in the legislation. Rather, this has been passed on to the provinces, to colleges, and to professional regulating bodies. The Government of Canada has a duty to protect the conscience rights of physicians and allied health professionals.

The conscience rights of physicians are charter rights and those charter rights are as important as the charter rights of patients to access physician-assisted dying. The charter rights of physicians with respect to the protection of their conscience and right to conscientious objection is not only any charter right, it is a charter right under section 2 of the charter. Section 2 charter rights are considered to be fundamental freedoms.

It is important that the legislation sufficiently respect everyone's charter rights, the charter rights of patients and the charter rights of physicians.

Last, I want to emphasize the importance for the government to respond quickly in the area of palliative care. This is very critical. It is something that Parliament has talked about for a long time. There have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of four or five Senate committee reports. There was at least one report out of the House of Commons. I know that the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga chaired a committee that looked at the issue of palliative care.

Now that physician-assisted dying has become a reality, it is time to end the discussion. It is time to act when it comes to providing access to palliative care. It is widely recognized that palliative care is an essential part of end-of-life decision-making. One thing that I heard over and over again as a member of the special joint committee was that a person cannot truly consent to physician-assisted dying unless the person has all options available to them. One of those options is palliative care, but the fact is that only 15% to 30% of Canadians have access to palliative care. Let me say that the option of palliative care without access to palliative care is no option at all.

I want to acknowledge that the Minister of Health did announce $3 billion in funding for palliative care. This is a very important step in the right direction, but it is also noteworthy that there is no mention of palliative care in the budget. There is not one new cent for funding towards palliative care. It begs the question, where is this funding going to come from and when, and where is it going to go? It is absolutely important that the government take decisive action on palliative care.

With that, I would say that this legislation is a significant step in the right direction, having regard for some of the recommendations in the special joint committee main report that I believe went beyond the scope of Carter. I want to thank the government for listening, for considering the dissenting report that was authored by me, as well as my three Conservative MP colleagues on the committee.

However, it is imperfect legislation. There are some of what I would consider to be significant flaws. I am hopeful that the government will be amenable as the legislation moves forward to accepting amendments so that everyone's charter rights can be respected, the charter rights of patients, the charter rights of physicians and allied health professionals, and the charter rights of vulnerable persons.

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for London North Centre for introducing this well-intentioned piece of legislation. Bill C-242 seeks to establish a Criminal Code offence for acts of torture committed by non-state actors. As the hon. member for London North Centre pointed out, the only section of the Criminal Code that establishes a specific offence for torture is section 269.1, and section 269.1 only deals with acts committed by state actors.

At the outset it is important to acknowledge, as the hon. member did, that those who commit torturous acts for non-state actors are not given immunity in Canada. On the contrary, there are any number of Criminal Code offences that apply to torturous acts, depending on the nature and the scope of the act. Those sections include offences such as aggravated assault, attempted murder, kidnapping, and so on.

The offences that are presently on the books in the Criminal Code are long-established offences. They are well understood. There is a wide body of case law. Those convicted of any one of those offences may spend a very long time in jail. Take, for example, aggravated assault. Someone convicted of aggravated assault may spend 14 years in jail. In the most serious of cases, someone convicted may be designated a dangerous offender, rendering that individual ineligible for parole. Being designated as a dangerous offender is tantamount to being sentenced to life in prison.

That is precisely what happened in the case of the Calgary man to whom the hon. member alluded, who had committed horrendous acts of torture. I will not mention that man's name in the House because it is unworthy of being mentioned in the House or in any other public forum. The fact is that the man took someone for two years and confined, beat, burned, and starved that person. That heinous, despicable individual was charged and convicted and designated as a dangerous offender and will very likely spend the rest of his natural life behind bars, where he belongs.

I mention that simply to say that there are laws on the books at present; and in general, it is my observation that they are largely working. However, the hon. member for London North Centre says that the laws on the books just are not good enough and that torture is a specific crime worthy of a specific Criminal Code offence.

All decent Canadians find torture to be abominable. Torture is vile, inhumane, and evil. The victims of torture, those who suffer at the hands of their torturers, endure physical and emotional pain that is probably unimaginable. They live with that legacy likely for the rest of their lives. To be tortured is tantamount to a life sentence for victims.

When the hon. member for London North Centre says the current laws are not good enough, I take it that he has a point. We, as parliamentarians, have a duty to ensure that the laws on the books do justice by holding perpetrators of heinous crimes accountable and do justice for the victims so that they can begin the process of healing.

Therefore, it is on that basis that I believe that Bill C-242 deserves to go to the next step in the legislative process, to committee, for further review, further study, and further amendment. I want to thank the hon. member for London North Centre for acknowledging that, as with all bills brought before the House in the early stages, there are often modifications and amendments that need to be made to improve the bill.

This is not a perfect bill. In fact, there are areas with which I have some concerns. For example, the definition of torture in Bill C-242 is a different definition from the definition of torture under section 269.1 of the Criminal Code. The definition in section 269.1 of the Criminal Code is the same definition that is provided in article 1 of the United Nations convention against torture. The definition in Bill C-242, as I read it at least, seems to be more restrictive. Additionally, the sentencing in Bill C-242 is different from the sentencing under section 269.1.

We have a situation where, if Bill C-242 passed in its current form, we could have two different definitions of torture in the Criminal Code, two different tests for torture in the Criminal Code, and two different sentences under the Criminal Code, depending on whether the torturous acts were committed by a state or non-state actor. That is a problem.

However, as I say, I will support this bill so that it can move forward, because it is a well-intentioned bill and, as the hon. member says, the victims of torture deserve that we ensure that the criminal justice system and the Criminal Code fully provide the remedies that are necessary to hold perpetrators of those crimes fully accountable.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am really amazed by that question. Obviously the member has not been paying much attention to this issue at all. If he had, he would know that I not only wrote to the Ethics Commissioner but also made my letter public. Not only did I make my letter public but I have also gone on television about this issue. I have talked to the media. I have engaged the public. I am not hiding behind parliamentary immunity.

The member should know better.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for the good question.

Yes, it is true that this information is publicly available, but it is not readily available in the sense that people can go online and find out the names of individuals who attended a specific fundraising event on a specific date. In fact, had this fundraiser not been leaked to the CBC, Canadians might very well have never discovered that the minister attended this fundraiser, because it is quite possible that no one would have been able to put all the pieces together.

That is a problem. It is particularly a problem given the appearance of preferential access. It may be that although the minister broke the Prime Minister's ethics code, there really is nothing to hide and everything was more or less above board. If that is the case, then the minister can do something very easily, which is to release the list of attendees. It is very simple. It would be a major step to help clear the stench that surrounds this event.

I really, for the life of me, cannot understand why the minister is reluctant to do this if she really has nothing to hide.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party took office after the Liberal Party brought the sponsorship scandal to Canada. The former Liberal government brought corruption in government to a level that had never before been seen by Canadians. That was the situation that our previous Conservative government inherited from the former Liberal government.

What did the Conservative government do when it came to office? It took action. It cast the Federal Accountability Act, the most open and comprehensive piece of legislation to open up government. We banned secret donations to political parties. Our Conservative government strengthened the powers of the Ethics Commissioner and the Auditor General and improved access to information.

The record of the previous Conservative government is a record to be proud of, when it comes to openness and transparency. That is something that cannot be said about the former Liberal government, and it is starting to look as if the current Liberal government is following the sordid record of the previous Liberal government.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary indicated that the Minister of Justice took steps to contact the Ethics Commissioner in advance of the fundraiser. In fact, the fundraiser became public on April 5, through CBC. It was only after the fundraiser became public that the minister saw fit to contact the Ethics Commissioner, so the Minister of Justice did not take proactive steps. In fact, this fundraiser was intended to be secret. The Minister of Justice did not want Canadians to know about it. The Minister of Justice wanted to keep Canadians in the dark. Canadians would not have known about it and Canadians would have been kept in the dark but for the fact that the fundraiser was leaked to the CBC, and it was only then that the Minister of Justice saw fit to go to the Ethics Commissioner.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister asked about the letter that I received back from the Ethics Commissioner. The letter merely stated that the minister did not break section 16 of the Conflict of Interest Act, that the minister did not technically break the law. I do not think that is the standard that the Prime Minister set when he unveiled an open and accountable government. I would think that all Canadians would expect ministers to adhere to the law. The issue is that she broke the Prime Minister's ethics code.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

moved:

That the House urge the Minister of Justice to:

(a) follow her government’s own guidelines for Ministers and Ministers of State as described in Annex B of Open and Accountable Government 2015, that “Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must ensure that political fundraising activities or considerations do not affect, or appear to affect, the exercise of their official duties or the access of individuals or organizations to government”; that “There should be no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access, accorded to individuals or organizations because they have made financial contributions to politicians and political parties”; and that “There should be no singling out, or appearance of singling out, of individuals or organizations as targets of political fundraising because they have official dealings with Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, or their staff or departments”;

Mr. Speaker, it is with disappointment that I rise today to speak to this matter. It is never a good day when a minister of the crown breaches ethical standards which the minister is bound by. It is particularly disappointing when that minister of the crown is the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, someone who is bound by the highest ethical standards.

As Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the minister must not only at all times act with the highest degree of integrity, the Minister of Justice must also be seen to at all times act with the highest degree of integrity.

Mr. Speaker, the role of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General is an important role. It is a unique role, and in that role a special trust is placed in the minister. We are here today to debate this matter because the Minister of Justice and Attorney General has broken that trust.

It was not long ago, in fact it was indeed only in November of 2015, that the Prime Minister, with great fanfare, unveiled “Open and Accountable Government”, the ethical guidelines for which ministers and parliamentary secretaries in the government are bound.

The Prime Minister, in his opening letter contained in “Open and Accountable Government”, said it is not just a matter of adopting the right rules and seeing that those rules are complied with on a technical basis. Rather, he said that ministers in his government would be held to a higher standard; indeed they would be held to the highest standard of honesty, integrity, openness, and accountability. Today we will learn whether the Prime Minister meant what he said and said what he meant, or whether those words, like so many words of the Prime Minister, are merely hollow words with no meaning at all.

The Prime Minister's ethics code states that ministers shall ensure that political and fundraising advertising clearly separates fundraising from department responsibilities. Consistent with that, the Prime Minister's ethics code provides that ministers shall not engage and converse on matters related to their ministerial responsibilities at fundraisers. Despite those rules, this particular fundraiser was billed as a fundraiser with the Minister of Justice; it was not the hon. member for Vancouver Granville, despite the very clear guidelines from the Prime Minister that provide that ministers must separate their ministerial duties from fundraising.

Admittedly, if that was all it was, a situation where the event had been advertised as a fundraiser with the Minister of Justice as opposed to the hon. member for Vancouver Granville, it would be fair to say that it was a breach of the Prime Minister's ethics code, but a minor breach, a technical breach, something that might be attributable to sloppiness, that certainly should not be repeated in the future, but something that would not require any further action.

However, that is not what happened. What happened was far more serious. It was not only advertised as a fundraiser with the Minister of Justice, but as an opportunity for those who paid $500 to engage the minister on matters pertaining specifically to her responsibilities as the minister. If people wanted to talk about medical marijuana, physician-assisted dying legislation, or missing and murdered indigenous women, they could pay $500 for that opportunity. There is only one way to characterize this type of fundraising. It is called “pay-to-play” fundraising. What the minister did was attend and participate in a pay-to-play fundraiser.

It gets worse. It was not only a pay-to-play fundraiser that anyone could attend. Rather, it was targeted to a select group of elite Bay Street lawyers to pay in return for access to the Minister of Justice to talk about issues that pertain specifically to her responsibilities.

Then there was the location of the fundraiser, which was Torys LLP, a law firm which has extensive legal dealings with the federal government. Not only does it deal extensively with the federal government, lobbying of the federal government is one of the core services that Torys LLP provides to its clients. Also, amongst its most senior partners and senior lobbyists, happened to be an individual who was registered to lobby the Minister of Justice up until the eve of the fundraiser.

So much for the Prime Minister's ethics code, which states that ministers shall not raise funds from department stakeholders and lobbyists. Certainly, the Minister of Justice disregarded that part of the Prime Minister's ethics code.

Let us take a step back and look at what we are dealing with. We have a Minister of Justice, who has broad authority and power over legal matters concerning the federal government, attending a fundraiser at which attendees were invited to pay in return for the opportunity to engage the minister on matters that pertain directly to the minister's responsibilities. It was targeted to a select group of Bay Street lawyers, hosted at a law firm with extensive legal dealings with the federal government, including the minister's own department, and which counted as one of its most senior lobbyists someone who up until the eve of the fundraiser was registered to lobby the minister herself. That is what we are dealing with. It stinks. That is what it does.

What is very clear is that the minister broke the Prime Minister's ethics code by failing to ensure that fundraising advertising did not mix fundraising with her responsibilities as minister. The minister broke the Prime Minister's ethics code by raising funds from department stakeholders. The Minister of Justice broke the ethics code by failing to sufficiently separate her duties as Minister of Justice with Liberal Party fundraising activities; and the Minister of Justice broke the Prime Minister's ethics code by giving at least the appearance of preferential access to government.

These are not technical breaches of the Prime Minister's ethics code; these are substantial breaches of the Prime Minister's ethics code; these are multiple substantial breaches of the Prime Minister's ethics code.

Instead of taking responsibility for these multiple breaches, the minister refuses to stand up and answer even the most basic questions about this sordid fundraising affair. If the minister has nothing to hide and if everything is above board, then the minister, as a starting point, could release the list of attendees at the fundraiser, but the minister will not do that. I guess her reason is that there really is nothing that could be above board about a Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada participating in a pay-to-play fundraiser.

Canadians deserve better than this from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Canadians deserve better than a Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada engaged in pay-to-play fundraisers. Canadians deserve a Minister of Justice who adheres to the highest ethical standards in government. Canadians deserve not only a Minister of Justice who is at all times independent, but a Minister of Justice who is at all times seen to be independent.

By attending this pay-to-play fundraiser, the Minister of Justice has not only breached the Prime Minister's ethics code; the minister has compromised her independence and impugned the integrity of her office.

I would be remiss if I did not note that it was not long ago that members on that side of the House, when they were in opposition, certainly had harsh words for the former minister of Canadian heritage in the previous Conservative government, the Hon. Shelly Glover.

Shelly Glover, as minister, attended a $50-a-head fundraiser, not a $500-a-head fundraiser, and upon arriving at this fundraiser she discovered that there were department stakeholders in attendance at the fundraiser. What did Shelly Glover do when that happened? She immediately reported the incident to the Ethics Commissioner, she took responsibility, she returned the cash that was raised from the fundraiser, and she instructed her electoral district association to be absolutely certain that, in the future, department stakeholders were not invited and in attendance at fundraising events. That is what Shelly Glover did under the previous Conservative government. What has the currents minister done?

The current minister has refused to take responsibility for her actions. She has refused to answer basic questions about who was there and what was said. The minister has refused to release the list of attendees. The minister has refused to return the pay-to-play cash.

Instead of saying, at the very least, that she made a mistake and that this would not happen again, the minister is lined up to attend yet another pay-to-play fundraiser, effectively thumbing her nose at the Prime Minister's ethics code, and thumbing her nose at Canadians who expect their ministers to be open, accountable, transparent, and independent. If the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada took her responsibility seriously and took the office she holds seriously, the minister would do the right thing: stand up, apologize, and return the pay-to-play cash.

If the Prime Minister's ethics code is worth the paper it is written on, if it is actually meaningful, if it is something more than just hollow words and hollow gestures, which sadly have become hallmarks of the current young government, then the Prime Minister will insist that the Minister of Justice return the pay-to-play cash, if the Minister of Justice does not see fit to do so herself. Very simply, the Prime Minister's ethics code demands that the minister return the pay-to-play cash; and Canadians deserve no less.

[Ethics, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's own ethics code states that ministers shall not raise funds from department stakeholders and lobbyists. Yet last week the Minister of Justice attended a pay-to-play fundraiser at a law firm with extensive dealings with the minister's department and a lobbyist who was registered to lobby, guess who, the minister.

Therefore, will the minister stand in the House and advise which other lobbyists were at the fundraiser?

[Ethics, April 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice, in attending the pay-to-play fundraiser with select lawyers and lobbyists, has compromised her independence, brought the office that she holds into disrepute, and breached ethical standards by which the minister is bound.

Will the minister stop the excuses and return the pay-to-play cash?

[Justice, April 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Justice attends pay-to-play fundraisers, the minister has been AWOL in fulfilling her responsibilities as minister. After nearly six months, the minister has yet to make a judicial appointment, creating a situation that the Chief Justice of Alberta has called “desperate”.

When will the Minister of Justice stop attending pay-to-play fundraisers and start appointing desperately needed judges, or is the minister taking applications at the fundraisers?