Rachael Thomas

[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.

[Marijuana, April 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, science has shown that marijuana is linked to serious health concerns, both mentally and physically, especially for our young people under the age of 25. Yet, the Prime Minister still insists on pushing forward marijuana legalization.

Would the Liberals admit to us that marijuana is in fact a causal factor for these illnesses and that their policies will not protect the Canadian children that we love?

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, where do I start?

The member does want assurances. At the end of the day, the assurances the member is looking for are found in a record that the member opposite and his party will not accept. Other than that, I have no further proof.

With regard to the comment, calling the Prime Minister a liar, when the Prime Minister made the promise to spend $10 billion, which has now turned into $30 billion, that was in fact untruthful. However, my comment was out of line in this House, and so I do extend an apology.

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the former government did leave this country with a $5 billion surplus, which is certainly remarkable and something that is noteworthy.

The way the former government did that was through prudent fiscal management and achieving a balanced budget, which then led to a surplus. Again, I would bring to the attention of members in the House that the government opposite acknowledged in its budget that it was left in a positive fiscal state.

Unfortunately, when it comes down to the “Fiscal Monitor” and accepting the report that this House would like to put on the table, the members opposite simply will not accept it. Nevertheless it does not change the fact that the former government left a $5 billion surplus.

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, when I look at this budget, I see a whole lot of money being spent. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Unfortunately, however, it is $30 billion, which is $20 billion more than what the current government said it would spend. That is breaking a promise. That is a significant deal.

With regard to that, in the midst of all of this spending, at the end of the day someone has to pay all of that back. It will not be this present generation; it will be the next generation. This budget would not in fact be an investment in the rising generation, in the youth of our nation. This is a budget that would actually saddle them with ginormous debt and therefore actually would have a detrimental impact on their future.

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the partnership between post-secondary and industry, and co-operative placement initiatives, I will reserve judgment until the details are further released. I support the intent of this project, because greater links between employers and post-secondary institutions are certainly needed. This would ensure that students receive the training and the skills that businesses are looking for in order to fill their current job openings. This would continue the trend of the Canada jobs grant and expand this approach to students.

However, we need to acknowledge that this budget would significantly roll back previous tax benefits to students with regard to the measures the Liberals have taken. The ending of the education and textbook tax credit would have a significant impact on young Canadians, especially as they transition to full-time employment. The education tax credit was the greatest benefit to students as they started their career in the workforce, as it significantly reduced their income taxes, typically to zero, for the first few years after graduation. Eliminating this tax credit would mean that youth would have less money in their pockets when they were entering the workforce and struggling to establish themselves.

Most alarmingly, the current government would saddle the next generation with a ginormous debt load. While this generation would dine, the next generation would be stuck with the bill. Using big government to achieve economic growth simply does not work. History has shown this over and over again, without exception.

The facts of life are simple, and in fact, they happen to be conservative. We all have basic needs: food, shelter, clothing. To purchase these things, we need an income. To have an income, we need jobs. The best way to create jobs is by cultivating an environment where small businesses will thrive, an environment where entrepreneurs are encouraged to take calculated risks to pursue innovative ideas, thus creating jobs for everyone. Unfortunately, this budget is out of step with the needs of Canadians. Interestingly, in the budget itself on page 19 the party opposite acknowledges “...that Canada is starting from a relatively strong fiscal position”. For that, those of us on this side of the House would say the government is welcome.

Canadians deserve better stewardship of this gift. Unfortunately, however, the only real changes we see in the budget before us today are poor fiscal management and obvious disregard for today's hard-working taxpayers and the generations that are to come after us.

[Physician-Assisted Dying, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, every single large organization within the persons with disabilities community shares the same opinion on assisted dying: they want a prior review process of non-medical social vulnerabilities for every patient.

This request comes from their shared experience. Poverty, isolation, and temporary depression often accompany a person's adaptation to a new disability.

What I would like to know is this: will the Liberals respect those with disabilities by ensuring a robust prior review of social vulnerabilities is provided, and if so, what will that look like?

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the increased access to the student loans program is positive and builds upon the legacy of the Conservative government to increase accessibility to post-secondary education. Though it is true that grants will increase slightly this year, it is equally true that most students will see a decrease in their grant amounts as the Liberals implement a progressive income bracket for grants in subsequent years. This means that despite the focus on youth in this budget, the total sum of these measures will not significantly reduce the cost of achieving a post-secondary education.

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

I am afraid it will only be about 30 seconds more, but please go ahead.