Rachael Thomas

[Democratic Reform, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the minister continues to push for a fake consultation process that perhaps a few thousand people will be involved in. A referendum would allow tens of millions of Canadians to have their voices heard. This Liberal minister believes that she knows better than Canadians. Will the Minister of Democratic Institutions allow all Canadians an opportunity to weigh in on this important discussion by holding a referendum?

[Democratic Reform, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Democratic Institutions talks a big game when it comes to hearing the will of the people. However, it appears that she is scared of actually asking Canadians in a referendum as to how we should elect members of Parliament. First she delayed forming the committee; then she gave six Liberal MPs the final say in what system the committee recommends; and now the Liberals have ruled out directly asking Canadians for their voice. When will the Liberals stop the games and give Canadians the final say in how we elect members of Parliament?

[Copyright Act, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I will reiterate that the House had a fabulous opportunity to join forces, to collaborate, and to work together as colleagues from all sides of the House. Unfortunately, when the members opposite decided to rush this legislation without going through due process, they gave up that opportunity. They hurt that opportunity, thereby hurting Canadians, because Canadians want us to be unified on the issues, where we can be.

Again, today we missed an opportunity to work together on all sides of the House, and it is a sad day.

[Copyright Act, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, again, at the beginning of my speech, I mentioned that this, unfortunately, is a missed opportunity for us as parliamentarians, and for Canada as a whole. I know there are people within my constituency, and I am sure others here do as well, who talk to me about working collaboratively in the House. I assure them that there are opportunities to do so. This was one of them. This was an opportunity for us to come together and work collaboratively on an issue that we can agree upon, in order to better serve all Canadians as an inclusive culture and society as a whole.

Yes, indeed, today was a missed opportunity and a very sad day for not only the House but Canadians in general.

[Copyright Act, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate what my hon. colleague said when he mentioned that this is a missed opportunity to work together as colleagues in the House. Back in my riding, people have told me many times that they are looking for us as parliamentarians to take those opportunities where we can collaborate and work together to make legislation better, to serve Canadians from coast to coast to coast. This was one of those opportunities, and unfortunately, it was missed today because of the rush that was put on Bill C-11, a bill that would amend the Copyright Act.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Carleton for his hard work on this piece of legislation when the Conservatives were in power. The member can be assured that there is support from this side of the House with regard to this legislation, because we can see how it would enhance the quality of life for those with a visual impairment and therefore do not have the access they need to library services. Canadians who are print disabled should have the same level of access as all Canadians, and so again, I will reiterate that we do support this legislation going forward.

This legislation would build on that which was introduced previously by the Conservative government to allow for charities and not-for-profits to produce alternative formats for copyrighted material. The important limitation is that this is a not-for-profit exemption, so no one would be able to make a profit off an artist's or a writer's intellectual property. This is a key point, because the legislation would be for the betterment of all Canadians. It would serve our nation as a whole and not profit.

The bill addresses a barrier to inclusion for those with a visual or comprehension disability, which is why we support this legislation for building a more inclusive society.

We all support efforts to bring into effect the World Intellectual Property Organizations' Marrakesh Treaty, as it is known. This treaty is designed to remove barriers to the access of alternative format print materials through changes to domestic copyright laws on an international basis, while also facilitating the sharing of literary materials among nations.

I agree that reading material should be accessible to all. Growing up in my home, I had parents who put a lot of emphasis on the importance of reading. Before I was able to read, my mom spent a lot of time reading to me, believing that it helped with development. I do see where it has had a positive impact. I learned to read at a very young age and I enjoyed it tremendously. I learned much through my reading. I can only imagine what it would be like for someone who does not have access to reading materials to take advantage of the opportunities for learning, enjoyment, and cultural engagement in the same way that I was able to.

We can all agree that this legislation is important and that it would address a pressing need of those with visual or comprehension disabilities. However, the minister overstates how this legislation would increase the employment opportunities for persons with a disability. There are other factors that have to be understood on this matter.

We have all heard the personal stories of those living with a disability, how difficult it is for them to secure and maintain employment, or how difficult it is for them to have a sustainable income. These individuals are looking for the leadership from the present Liberal government that they saw under our previous Conservative government. Unfortunately, the government appears to be going after the low-hanging fruit on this file, with legislation that was already in motion, introduced under the previous government and largely in the same format as we see it today.

The Liberal government promised in its platform to introduce a national disabilities act, and unfortunately we have not seen any movement forward on that. The focus of such an act would be to address the systemic barriers to accessing employment and community services that are faced by persons with disabilities.

Bill C-11 is a much-needed piece of legislation for Canada. It is a much-needed initiative going forward. Persons with disabilities in this country are asking the present government for a real plan and sustained leadership. They are asking for employment opportunities and for equality in all things having to do with life.

While this legislation before us today is a good step, it is not adequate and it does not show leadership in the way Canadians need.

It is unfortunate that there was no mention of persons with disabilities in the Speech from the Throne or in the Liberals' 2016 budget, again reiterating that the current government is not taking seriously those persons with disabilities.

Our Conservative government had a strong record of providing new tools and programs to give persons with disabilities control over their future. Under the initiatives brought in by the late Jim Flaherty, we increased training for employment, increased accessibility for those who have a disability, and ensured they are able to join employment forces. We funded community projects to make facilities more accessible to those with a physical disability. We created a registered savings plan so that parents were given new tools to financially plan for their child with a disability.

While we support this legislation that is before the House today, we are left asking some very significant questions. We wonder where the ambition of the current government has gone, where its promises lie. We wonder if the current government is going to follow through on its commitments to a national plan with regard to those with disabilities. Again, not having seen it in the 2016 budget and not having heard of any sort of plan in the Liberals' throne speech, we are left wondering these things. Why is it that the Liberals have not made inclusion of persons with a disability a top priority?

What I have heard on the ground from those people living with a disability is that they want to work so that they can provide for themselves. They want opportunities to seek employment and to not be discriminated against as they do so. Again, they are looking to the current government to take leadership in this regard. We know that among us it is often disabled individuals who are the most impoverished. Because they cannot find the type of employment that perhaps others can, they are left with a rather meagre income. As a result, they are living in poverty and do not have access to the services and the lifestyle that perhaps the rest of Canadians have. They want to be able to access public spaces, to participate in their communities, and to be contributing members. Once again, they are looking to the current government to provide some leadership in these areas.

I have not heard of this bill, Bill C-11, as being a top-of-mind concern for constituents when so many of those persons with a disability are in fact living in poverty because they cannot access employment. Once again, I would reiterate that the minister is overstating that this bill that is before the House today would create greater employment opportunities to the extent that she has implied. Although it would be a helpful step in that direction, once again I implore the government to take adequate steps in this direction.

While we support this legislation and the intent that it holds, we are left asking this. Where is the plan to address the more serious issues that face the Canadians among us who have a disability? Where is the leadership that the current government promised for the sake of all Canadians, to have an inclusive place within Canadian society?

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the Carter decision was made to protect the autonomy of individuals to preserve their choice at the end of life. Therefore, it would seem to me that, if we are to protect someone's choice, we should make all end-of-life options available to them. Palliative care is certainly an essential one.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the right of a physician to be compensated for this procedure, it certainly poses some concerns for me. A physician takes an oath that he or she will do all that is possible to contend for life, to protect life. To suddenly be compensated for assisting someone in having that life taken seems contrary to the oath that a doctor takes. To consider compensating a doctor for taking a life could perhaps contribute to abuse of this, going forward, and a lack of accountability for doctors, which means that we could have lives that are prematurely ended without that individual giving direct consent to have it done or being forced to do so.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, this piece of legislation has to do with the right to life. That is what the Carter decision was going after. Therefore, I find it somewhat ironic that we are introducing assisted dying when dealing with the right to life. We, as a Canadian society, have always contended for life. Doctors exist to preserve life. They take an oath to fight for someone's life. Therefore, at the end of the day I must ask this question. How does the Carter decision contend for life?

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start this evening by acknowledging the difficulty of this task. Certainly the Minister of Justice faces a very daunting one. It is clear that Canadians have varied beliefs and deeply held convictions when it comes to the issue that is before the House today. I appreciate that the justice minister has attempted to find a law that balances the autonomy of individuals and the rights and responsibilities of the Canadian community as a whole, while simultaneously protecting the vulnerable among us.

It has been said that a society can be judged by how it treats its weakest members. I believe that is true.

I have to confess that I have wrestled with this legislation and continue to do so today. It seems as though the Supreme Court of Canada, with the Carter decision, has forced us into an unending abyss of grey. I prefer clear lines. I like black and white wherever possible.

I believe that doctors exist to save lives, not take them, and I believe that we as a society should always contend for life and not against it. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled otherwise, and thereby robbed Canadians of clarity when it comes to this issue.

Assisted dying is now permitted in Canada, and we as parliamentarians have been tasked with the responsibility of putting legislation in place.

To that end, I would like to take a few minutes to share with the House and with the Canadian public my reflections on the proposed legislation. In particular, I would like to explore whether or not the rules and regulations within this legislation are adequate to protect the most vulnerable Canadians among us from being encouraged or pressured into pursuing assisted dying.

To be clear, this legislation is far better than what was recommended by the special joint committee, but there are still a number of things that cause me concern.

The first is a lack of access to quality palliative care within the nation of Canada. Right now, only 30% of Canadians have access to palliative care. Without access to all end-of-life options, a person cannot make a fully informed decision with regard to how they will face their death. Palliative care affirms that fighting to preserve life is our natural instinct and that dying is a part of our natural human experience.

Palliative care empowers a person to come to the end of his or her life with dignity intact and in a state of comfort. It deeply concerns me that we as a society are willing to invest significant dollars into assisted death before allocating adequate funds for palliative care. Why are we shifting to placing greater emphasis on death than on life?

Furthermore, I am concerned about those who acquire a disability during their life. In my role as the critic for persons with disabilities, I was able to consult with many organizations from across the country as well as organizations within my local constituency, and with a broad number of individuals who currently suffer from a disability. These personal stories helped to shape the concerns that I hold and will deliver today.

Without exception, every person who acquired a disability in their life told me that they experienced a period of intense depression as they adjusted to their new reality. For some, this period lasted days, and for others it lasted years. However, the hope they shared with me was that despite how different their life looked after they adjusted to their disability, they did regain purpose, joy, and dignity.

All of these individuals continue to face significant daily challenges. Quite a few of them rely on others for basic needs, such as eating or personal hygiene, and many even live with chronic pain. However, all of them have come to value the life that they lead and live with dignity, honour, and respect.

The message that these individuals brought forward to me was that in their previous lives they did not have a clue with regard to how it was possible to live with purpose and dignity while having a disability. This attitude took a while to discover, and they did so within the circumstances of their condition.

This is why I was pleased to see that the justice minister held her ground and did not allow for advance consent.

The Supreme Court, in many previous decisions, has defined the concept of continuous consent. We often hear about this in relation to sexual assault trials, but the principle is active in this case as well. Both the trial judge and the Supreme Court specifically limited assisted dying to a competent adult person who clearly consents to the termination of life. This consent needs to be given throughout the entire procedure. A previous declaration cannot fully appreciate how a person's understanding of his or her own condition changes as he or she learns to adapt to the new reality. Simply trusting someone's preconceived concept of what they will be like in the future is not a reliable mechanism for determining how they will actually be with their future condition.

I appreciated the reference from the minister to the need to protect vulnerable persons. The Supreme Court rightly found that the intent of the previous Criminal Code provisions was to protect vulnerable people from being induced to suicide. The Supreme Court validated this intent with its Carter decision. The unfortunate reality of people with disabilities and those with degenerative conditions is all too often one of poverty. In this circumstance, these individuals are entirely reliant on community access initiatives in order to live lives of dignity.

I have heard tragic stories of individuals who, with minimal community supports, such as adequate home care or assistance in transportation, could easily live a dignified existence. However, because these individuals were left in isolation and vulnerability, they wanted to access assisted suicide. They wanted to end the suffering that had nothing to do with their condition and everything to do with their social vulnerabilities. This is the harsh reality. Without strong safeguards in place, vulnerable people could be influenced to accept assisted dying because of non-medical social circumstances.

For this reason, all of the major organizations I have talked with from across Canada that work with persons with disabilities have called for a prior review by an expert to assess non-medical social vulnerabilities. This is not currently part of the legislation that is proposed. Something that I believe is absolutely essential to any legislative framework as we go forward is to have a prior review by someone with the expertise to determine if isolation, depression, burden, or poverty are impairing the ability of someone to make a competent decision with regard to assisted dying.

I commend the Liberal government for reintroducing into this debate the concept that physician-assisted dying must be connected with a condition that would lead to death. I appreciate this provision. As an alternate member of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying, I saw a number of members of that committee from both the House of Commons and the other place argue that assisted dying should be offered to any individual who felt he or she was experiencing “enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.”

The emphasis was on the perceived experience of the individual rather than a physical condition. There is no science to this approach, and no external diagnosis. If followed to its logical conclusion, this so-called criteria would allow anyone to access assisted dying without any accountability whatsoever. However, by tying assisted dying to an external medical diagnosis, it would move this process to something beyond the relative experience of the individual. This is critical to lessening the slippery slope that would inevitably exist with this legislation in place.

Every student who has taken an introductory class in politics would be familiar with the concept that laws are a social contract within Canada. When a law is struck down, it means that by extension every Canadian is in part affirming a previously banned behaviour that is now legal. It may not seem like a big distinction to limit assisted dying to conditions that reasonably could be expected to cause death, but it will in fact make a significant difference in the society we build going forward.

If we are a compassionate society that believes in protecting the vulnerable, it means that we believe society has the ability to overrule the impulses of the individual when we determine that those impulses would cause harm to the individual or harm to another person. This motive to save others is one of our redeeming characteristics as human beings. To allow this procedure to be accessed based on the subjective experience of individuals who feel they are in pain from a non-terminal condition would fundamentally alter the social fabric of our society. We are a society that contends for life. We must remain as that.

We as a Canadian society need to ensure that we do not tell those living with a disability, those who have to rely on others for the necessities of life, and those who face chronic pain with courage and determination, that their lives are not worth living. It is easy to lose sight of the broader implications to society when one focuses only on the post-modern concept of relative truth. Such an approach makes it impossible to argue with a suicidal person that his or her life is worth living. However, when we affirm objective truth, that is truth that remains true. Whether an individual believes it or not, it is so because we as a society have chosen to believe it.

[Ovarian Cancer Awareness, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, ovarian cancer is the most fatal women's cancer in Canada. It is estimated that this year 2,800 women will be diagnosed and 1,750 will die from the disease, that is five mothers, daughters, and sisters who we will lose each and every day this coming year.

There is no screening test, the symptoms are easily confused with less serious conditions, and the result is that ovarian cancer is usually detected at a very late stage. These facts are troubling because most Canadians are unaware of the risks that this cancer poses.

Ovarian Cancer Canada has launched a campaign to make Canadians more aware of ovarian cancer. There is also an immediate need for research dollars. This is why I am calling upon the federal government to invest in research to ensure women fighting this disease have the tools they need to beat it.

Please join me in increasing awareness by joining the fight on May 8 for World Ovarian Cancer Day.