Randall Garrison

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2020]

Madam Speaker, of course, I would like to join all my Bloc colleagues in thanking the health care workers in my riding as well who have done such an amazing job, in particular in the long-term care homes.

I also join them in suggesting that federal transfers should be increased. The NDP has been calling for that for a long time.

I want to stress again that I thank the members of the Canadian Forces for the work they did in Quebec, Ontario and are now doing in Manitoba.

In the defence committee when we were studying the response from the Canadian military, we had an interesting comment from the former Parti Québécois minister of health, Réjean Hébert. He said that he had no problem with national standards being established for long-term care, because those standards would be the same for all Canadians, that provincial boundaries would not really make any difference and that there were not really significant cultural differences there. He thought that establishing national standards, if that would help flow more funds to Quebec, would be a very good idea.

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest as the member for Winnipeg North talked about almost everything except health care transfers, which are at the heart of the Bloc Québécois motion.

I was shocked and horrified Canadian troops and the Red Cross had to bail out long-term care homes. Does the member agree with me that we should move toward national standards for long-term care and perhaps bring long-term care under the national health care act with those national standards?

[Self-Test Kits for HIV, December 1st, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, today marks World AIDS Day. Let us unite again today in the fight against HIV/AIDS to show support for people living with HIV and to commemorate the many who have died from AIDS-related illnesses.

A future with zero new HIV infections is in reach, something as a gay man of a certain age I never thought I would see. Knowledge is the key to eliminating the spread of HIV. People who know their status are far less likely to spread the virus and that makes self-testing a crucial factor in HIV prevention. Now that Canada has finally approved self-test kits, the government must ensure that indigenous, racialized, low-income people and those who live in rural and northern communities actually have access to these kits.

Improving access for the most marginalized and those who face the largest barriers to testing and treatment is the only way for Canada to meet its commitment to the UNAIDS 90-90-90 goal and the only way to eradicate HIV once and for all.

[Criminal Code, November 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lethbridge for raising what I know are very sincere concerns.

I have also heard concerns from the disabled community. Therefore, I have made the suggestion that we need a special committee of the House to undertake the statutory review of all the legislation around medical assistance in dying and that the mandate of that statutory review should include a provision to examine whether the safeguards for vulnerable people are adequate in our medical assistance in dying legislation.

Does the hon. member support my proposition that we make this part of the statutory review?

[Criminal Code, November 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I cannot thank the member for the question. That is a shameful statement to make in the House of Commons. It accuses physicians of being prepared to act both unethically and illegally in the way they assess those eligible for medical assistance in dying.

I just cannot understand what the motives are of those who are trying to suggest that this is, indeed, a real possibility.

[Criminal Code, November 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I am going to be very careful not to impute motive, but anyone who understands how medical assistance in dying works knows that these phrases of “same-day dying” and “same-day death” are completely and utterly false. The only way this could happen would be that the assessment procedures specified in law were not followed.

He is in fact saying that the only way we would have same-day death is if the medical professionals involved violated both the law and the professional standards to which they are subject. I do not know why people continue to insist that this is something that would be possible, when clearly it is not.

[Criminal Code, November 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, what I would say is that in the new track two, because there will be a broader range of medical conditions that may allow people to apply for medical assistance in dying, there are additional procedures required. One of those is for the assessors to seek extra expertise before the provision of medical assistance in dying.

The amendment I suggested came from the Association of MAID Assessors and Providers, which was to clarify that they could seek additional expertise, not from specialists but from those who are familiar, and perhaps more familiar than they might be, with the condition that is causing the patient's suffering.

The amendment clarifies how this is to proceed and who is to do the consultation. This is particularly important in rural and remote areas, where physicians may not have at hand those who could serve as assessors who have expertise in every medical condition that will now be covered under the track two.

[Criminal Code, November 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I am very surprised we are debating these two motions from the official opposition again in the House when these had been dealt with in committee. Without reflecting on the past decision of the Speaker, I have some concerns with respect to future precedence in declaring something particularly important, that it not open the Chair to the accusation of having a position on a particular question.

With that aside, I will turn to what is now before us.

Everyone in the House has sincerely held beliefs on this very important and difficult question of how we deal with end of life in Canada. It is important we all be careful not to impute motives to our fellow members in this debate however difficult that may be for us to do.

Turning to the content of these two motions, and again, I am surprised we are having a redo in the House.

Motion No. 2 talks about what is referred to officially as reflection period. What happens in actual fact is that those who request medical assistance in dying, where death is reasonably foreseeable, go through a very long and involved process with their spiritual advisers, their family and with the clinicians who are advising them on the end-of-life issues.

It is important to note that people are not choosing to end their lives when asking for medical assistance in dying. What they are doing is attempting to establish how they will deal with their inevitable death and to maintain their personal autonomy and control over the way that plays out. The New Democrats, in debate on medical assistance in dying, have always stated our priority is to keep in mind that what medical assistance in dying is designed to do is to reduce unnecessary suffering and not unduly prolong that suffering.

It is not just suffering for the patients, although that is one of the qualifications for being able to apply for medical assistance in dying, patients must be suffering intolerably, but also to reduce suffering for the families that are forced to bear witness to the suffering their loved ones are undergoing as they approach end of life.

What we have heard very clearly from those who are assessing and providing medical assistance is dying is that this 10-day period is not really a reflection period. It is a period that is imposed as a waiting period.

When I hear hon. members talk about people changing their minds, we need to look very carefully at what the evidence actually says. Yes, people who apply for medical assistance in dying do sometimes withdraw that request, but they almost always do so during the assessment period. Very few people do so during the waiting period. Of course, at any time they can still withdraw that consent, right up to the last moment.

Medical assessors and providers, as well as families, have said that the real impact of having such a 10-day period is simply to prolong suffering for everyone. When we look at the statistics on when those who applied for medical assistance in dying actually set a date for that assistance to be provided, we find that 50% or more of those are between the 11th and 14th day. In other words, they are being forced to wait out this period before they can assess medical assistance in dying.

It is very important we recognize that we may, and I believe we have, inadvertently prolong suffering through this so-called reflection period. Again, I remind members that we have heard again and again that this is not a snap decision people make; it is a decision that has been well considered with their families, spiritual advisers and with the physicians involved.

Motion No. 3 deals with those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It is important we remind ourselves that the condition of death being reasonably foreseeable was, in effect, taken out of medical assistance in dying legislation by the Truchon decision, not by Bill C-7.

The importance of Bill C-7 is that it would establish some special procedures that would be appropriate to those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. In that case, it set a minimum period for assessment, which was set at 90 days. Again, people are calling this a reflection period. It is not a reflection period. Nor is it a deadline by which medical assistance in dying must be carried out.

The bill would set a minimum time for assessment. If the clinicians and the patient involved believe the assessment should take longer, it can take longer than the 90 days. Therefore, the 90 days is in fact an arbitrary number. I do not think it is reflected in any medical science. Extending that to 120 has that risk, once again, of inadvertently and unintentionally prolonging suffering for those who are at the end of life.

I will not go on too long today, but it is important that we not confuse suicide with medical assistance in dying. Suicide is very serious, and I send my condolences to all those who have lost loved ones.

Medical assistance in dying is not about taking one's own life. It is about the situation when one's life is ending and how one maintains a dignified end to that life and is able to do so without prolonging suffering. We have heard again and again from families and practitioners that no one involved in medical assistance in dying wants anyone to die. They are simply dealing with the realities that medical conditions have presented to them. With that, I will end my comments.

[Criminal Code, November 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Shefford for bringing the individual situations of the plaintiffs in the Truchon case before the House again and for recognizing their bravery.

My question has to do with the unfortunate line I have heard in public, and even from some members of the official opposition, that somehow we have no obligation in Parliament to meet the deadline imposed by the decision of Madam Justice Beaudoin in the Truchon case. Not meeting that deadline would have serious consequences in Quebec.

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on the question of the importance of meeting the court deadline.

[Transgender Day of Remembrance, November 20th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, today I want to mark the Transgender Day of Remembrance and call attention to the more than 350 trans and gender-diverse people who were murdered this past year and the more than 3,500 people killed over the past decade worldwide just for being themselves.

Some might think that such heinous crimes could never happen here in Canada. Unfortunately, that is not the case. This past year alone, Canada saw the murders of two transgender Canadians. We must take this as a reminder that not only discrimination but also hatred persist, and that we must continue to fight for safety and full equality for all.

While 2020 has been a challenging year for all of us, it has hit the transgender and gender-diverse community especially hard. COVID has brought even greater challenges to a population that already faces barriers in finding housing and employment and in seeking out supportive health care. I call on members to not only mourn the losses of our parents, children and siblings, but, at the same time, celebrate the strength and resilience of this community.