Mr. Speaker, if I may, I am simply asking my learned colleague if he would have raised the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian charter in response to the decision of the Supreme Court.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 65% of the vote.
Criminal Code May 3rd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I am simply asking my learned colleague if he would have raised the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian charter in response to the decision of the Supreme Court.
Criminal Code May 3rd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his sincerity.
I would like to know whether, after reading the Supreme Court decision, my colleague would have recommended invoking the notwithstanding clause and overriding the Supreme Court's decision.
Criminal Code May 3rd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and the candour and sincerity with which he has expressed his views. I am simply asking him, upon reading, analyzing, studying, and reflecting on the decision of the Supreme Court, would the member share his views as to what he would have done to comply with that decision and within what time frame?
Criminal Code May 3rd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the sincerity and candour of his remarks in this honourable House.
I would like my colleague to explain, as concisely as possible, what steps he would have taken after reading the Supreme Court ruling to comply with the decision and take action on it.
Criminal Code May 3rd, 2016
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
There is one thing I must point out that is very meaningful. In life, we are all faced with choices, and we make these choices, but when the time comes to act on our choices, we have the option of changing our minds. We often exercise this right.
In the situation my colleague mentioned, the individual could not change their mind. That is why the government chose not to accept this recommendation. Someone makes a choice, but when the time comes to act on it, no one can ask them whether they have changed their mind or are reconsidering their decision.
People are autonomous and the choice is theirs to make. The government decided to accept that choice.
Criminal Code May 3rd, 2016
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
My colleague spoke about certain statistics and data, which I appreciate. I say that with all due respect and without any sarcasm whatsoever. However, this is not about ratings and assessing the numbers and the data. This is about human suffering. We should not lose sight of the fact that this exercise is made necessary by a Supreme Court ruling based on the charter. The current situation is no longer acceptable.
The purpose of my explanation was to show that there are situations where countries have been much more permissive and we have major concerns. In other situations, countries have been far less permissive, and now there are questions. We tried to do something that addressed the problems raised by the Supreme Court, while dealing with the information that we have before us, which is about human suffering.
Criminal Code May 3rd, 2016
Madam Speaker, before I participate in the debate at second reading on Bill C-14, concerning medical assistance in dying, I want to tell the people faced with making difficult end-of-life decisions and their loved ones that I am thinking of them.
Everyone knows that medical assistance in dying is a complex, delicate, and extremely personal issue. Since the Supreme Court ruled in the Carter case last year, Canadians have been taking part in this national debate. This issue continues to be debated and seriously considered around the world.
I would like to share with my colleagues what is happening elsewhere in the world. Almost everywhere, the deliberate taking of a life or aiding someone to end their life are serious crimes punished by lengthy sentences. As many people know, Canada is not alone in legislating to authorize medical assistance in dying.
Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and California are examples nearby. A little further away, Colombia, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg have legislation authorizing one type or another of medical assistance in dying. The provisions on safeguards, controls, and reports, which are all found in Bill C-14, are similar.
Usually, requests for medical assistance in dying must be voluntarily submitted by the patient in writing. In many cases, this must also be done in the presence of independent witnesses. The patient must obtain a second opinion from an independent doctor and must wait a certain amount of time between the day the written request is submitted and the day that the medical assistance in dying is provided.
Colombia has a unique approval process for requests for medical assistance in dying. Every hospital has interdisciplinary committees to assess such requests and support the patients and their families throughout the process.
Nearly all of the regimes we have looked at include a mandatory monitoring system in which independent committees collect information to monitor the situation. That information is then used to publish periodic public reports on medical assistance in dying.
The safeguards and controls set out in various statutes are relatively consistent. However, there are differences in the types of medical assistance in dying that are authorized and the circumstances in which medical assistance in dying is authorized. The differences in terms of who is eligible for medical assistance in dying and the way that assistance can be provided fall along a continuum.
On the one hand, we have the four U.S. states, which I mentioned earlier and which have enacted laws: Oregon in 1997, Washington in 2008, Vermont in 2013, and, more recently, California in 2015. In these states, a mentally competent adult 18 years of age or older can receive the assistance of a physician to die, provided that their request is voluntary and this person is suffering from a terminal disease, defined as an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months.
In these U.S. states, just one doctor may prescribe a substance that the patient administers to put an end to their life at the time of their choosing. This is what we commonly refer to as physician-assisted suicide. Voluntary euthanasia, in which the physician administers a substance that causes the death of the patient, is expressly prohibited. Patients are also not able to submit an advance directive.
In Colombia, a ministerial resolution was drafted in response to two rulings by the country's constitutional court. The resolution contains eligibility criteria similar to those of the U.S. states.
It limits eligibility to adults who have an incurable disease, which is defined as a serious, progressive, and irreversible disease, or a pathology that will lead to death within a relatively short time frame. It requires a specific prognosis of six months, in other words, the assurance that death is expected relatively soon. Unlike the U.S. states, Colombia authorizes only euthanasia. A doctor must administer the substance that will cause the patient's death.
At the other end of the spectrum are Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. In those three countries, patients can access medical assistance in dying if they are experiencing intolerable or unbearable physical or mental suffering caused by a serious incurable illness and if there is no possibility of improvement. Patients do not have to be dying or suffering from an illness that puts their life in danger in order to be eligible. In other words, physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia are authorized in those countries.
Although medical assistance in dying is provided only to adults in Luxembourg, minors as young as 12 can seek medical assistance in dying, with their parents' consent, in the Netherlands. In Belgium, adults and emancipated minors can seek medical assistance in dying in similar circumstances. In 2014, Belgium expanded its eligibility to include children of all ages, but only if their death is likely to occur in the short term and their suffering is physical.
The experiences and lessons learned by the Benelux countries were closely examined. For example, the law in the Netherlands authorizes requests for patients who no longer have the ability to express their wishes. However, research suggests that doctors are generally not prepared to euthanize such patients.
Consideration was also given to the Benelux countries' experience regarding patients who are suffering intolerably solely because of a mental illness. This is a very controversial issue. Evidence shows an upward trend in the percentage of people who seek euthanasia solely because of mental illness, and experts are starting to express their concerns about the fact that medical assistance in dying under such circumstances is becoming increasingly common. For example, in Belgium, people have been euthanized because of intolerable suffering resulting from depression, anorexia, blindness, fear of a disability or further suffering, and the pain caused by the lost of a loved one.
Many people fear that such broad access to medical assistance in dying can present real risks for people who are lonely or isolated and those who do not have any social, economic, or community support. It could also reinforce prejudice regarding the quality of life of seniors, people who are sick, and people with disabilities.
Our government sought to learn from the experience of other jurisdictions. The government is committed to continuing to examine the more general issues, and it will continue to observe what is being done elsewhere in the world in terms of medical assistance in dying.
I support Bill C-14, which was introduced by our government. Once this bill is passed, it will alleviate the suffering of those covered by its scope and will allow people to die with dignity.
Transport April 20th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, for all intents and purposes the driverless car is quite literally at our doorstep.
Technology in this area is advancing rapidly. In some countries, large amounts of money are being invested, and more and more driverless car projects are appearing. How does the government plan on supporting, regulating, and developing driverless cars in Canada?
42nd General Election April 19th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, while I do not know every one of my colleagues, I do know that six months ago to the day, at this very hour, we were all visiting polling stations in our respective ridings to thank volunteers, deputy returning officers, Chief Electoral Officer staff, and especially the voters. That same evening, surrounded by supporters, friends and family members, each of us celebrated victory. Things were different for the other candidates, whose dreams of serving in the House of Commons had been dashed.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their dedication to their country and the democratic process. I also invite all of my colleagues in the House of Commons to be grateful to them and to thank them warmly when they see them.
Public Service Labour Relations Act March 24th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I will give a little background. About 15 years ago, the Supreme Court validated the existing regime, to an extent. A more recent Supreme Court ruling overturned that decision, in light of the changes that took place since the original ruling. As a result, the existing regime is no longer valid and the government was given a deadline.
A new government came in after the last election. We came in and we took over the existing files. We therefore had to request a six-month extension. In its wisdom, the Supreme Court decided to give us another four months instead.
That is why we must have final legislation before March 16, 2016. The key point is that we must have a new collective bargaining regime. It is up to Parliament to choose a model for this regime.
We are proposing a regime that is modelled on the existing regime for other members of the civil service, other government employees.
We will obviously have to make some adjustments to reflect the unique nature of their work, to reflect how they operate, and to reflect their responsibilities.