Robert Aubin

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to this speech.

I hope that, once this debate is over, we will remember how much we have in common in our humanity, something that we all too often forget in the political arena.

The member who just spoke will find that my support for palliative care is unconditional. I have a question for him. I am asking myself that question at the same time because in many of the speeches that we heard today, including my own, members have been talking about their own personal experiences with death.

I think that the bill before us today requires us to look at things from a different perspective and to put ourselves in the shoes of the person who is dying.

Just before my mother died, she was taking such high doses of morphine that she was almost completely unaware of what was happening around her, but those drugs prevented her from suffering. I am trying to put myself in her shoes and think about whether she would have liked to leave when she was conscious, surrounded by her loved ones, knowing that medical assistance in dying was available to her.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation. While I do not agree with what he said, I found his presentation to be interesting. We can learn from our differences.

Two things stood out to me in his presentation. First, with the stroke of a pen, the Supreme Court is changing the picture in a way, while that stroke of the pen is the consequence of a changing society, in my opinion. The second thing is this type of dichotomy that he is presenting between palliative care and assisted suicide.

I wonder if we are burying our heads in the sand a bit when we talk about palliative care. I am thinking about my father, who was deeply religious. The day he consciously agreed that my mother would receive morphine to alleviate her suffering, he knew full well that he was shortening her life. That too is medical assistance in dying. In my opinion, it is the very spirit of this bill: to ensure that any suffering that can be alleviated is, even if that has an impact on the length of a person's life.

I would like the hon. member to comment on that.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his participation in this discussion. I know that he reads bills clause by clause, in great detail.

My question has to do with the eligibility criteria. The wording in the first three criteria of the bill seems to address all of the elements set out in the Carter decision.

However, the Liberal Party felt that it was necessary, for unknown reasons, to add a fourth criterion regarding a reasonably foreseeable natural death. I must admit that I find this very nebulous. I wonder if my colleague has managed to understand the meaning of this fourth criterion.

No one will have access to medical assistance in dying if they do not meet the four criteria. The first three are relatively objective and easy to understand. However, the fourth criterion is a monumental disaster.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Unfortunately, my response will sound a little partisan, which is what I hoped to avoid on this issue.

That is the kind of response the government has been offering up since coming to power six months ago. The government members went on and on about middle-class tax cuts, but the cuts will not help anyone who earns $45,000 or less. Those people are still not part of the middle class.

They say one thing but do another. What do people remember? Actions. During the election campaign, the Liberals promised to invest $3 billion in home care, which includes many different services. I am sure some of that money could have been allocated to palliative care and incorporated into this bill.

Of the $3 billion that was promised, not a penny showed up in the latest budget for any kind of home care. They seem to have postponed this important element. We have an aging population in Canada and Quebec, and we need to tackle these crucial issues.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Several aspects of Bill C-14 blur the line between federal and provincial health jurisdictions. As soon as we start talking about palliative care, we are talking about health care, which is a provincial jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, the federal government can still take a leadership role, especially with its health transfers, so that Canadians across the country have equal access to palliative care as part of the end-of-life care continuum. Naturally, this must be done in accordance with the provincial and territorial legislatures.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I cannot tell you how privileged I feel to take part in this discussion, and I mean “discussion”, because in the course of our work, which went on until midnight last night and will do the same tonight, it really has been a discussion, with the goal of coming up with the best possible solution, and not a partisan debate.

These kinds of subjects come up very rarely in history, and when the time comes for me to leave politics, I will look back on this as one of the most memorable topics of discussion in my time here.

In studying a bill, we must of course take a rational and intellectual approach, based on facts and science; however, with this kind of subject, we cannot ignore our personal experiences and, for many of us, the dimension of faith that goes along with life and quality of life.

Just a few decades ago, it would have been unthinkable for us to have a debate on the issue raised in Bill C-14. Today, this discussion is essential in order to address the concerns many Canadians have about quality of life.

Our society is constantly evolving, and for obvious and sometimes valid reasons, our democratic institutions will always be partly out of step with popular sentiment. However, the wishes of the majority should not be the only factor that guides us in our decision-making, because if our democratic institutions do not protect minorities, I wonder who will.

There are some historic issues that stand out in the life of a parliament, and as a result of the Carter ruling, we are now being called on to deal with such an issue. Although we are aware that there is little time left to deal with such a vast and also complex issue, we nevertheless have the good fortune of being able to refer to the Quebec experience, which quite surely can be a source of inspiration and can answer many of our questions.

Today, armed with the Quebec experience, our personal experiences, and input from many organizations and people in our respective ridings, we are being called on to make the best possible decision about how to provide medical assistance in dying. This is not about whether or not this assistance should be available.

The Supreme Court made that decision in Carter. As we all know, it was a unanimous ruling that sent a clear message on behalf of those who have spent years fighting for the right to die with dignity. It is up to us to legislate a framework for that assistance in a way that ensures respect for everyone's charter rights.

The bill is far from perfect, but at this point, I plan to vote in favour of it so that we can have the opportunity to perfect it by suggesting useful amendments during the committee's study.

I would like to share a very personal experience because I think that is the best entry point with this issue. Until recently, I was spared any major health problems, but not long ago, when I had a kidney stone that was relatively benign and easily treated, I had to cope with waiting six hours to get a drug that would alleviate my suffering.

When I shared my story with a few people I know, several of whom had had similar experiences, I saw how quickly people responded to suffering with sincere compassion.

Although this was a relatively minor health problem, for the first time, I felt, in my own body, the pain that may have been felt by my own parents, who both died of cancer. I spent as much time as possible with them when they had to move into a hospice. There is no doubt that their suffering was enduring and intolerable and that their health problems were grievous and irremediable. They met all of the criteria set out by the Supreme Court.

The workers in that hospice understood and still understand that no one should have to suffer while they are waiting to die when there are ways to relieve their pain, even though, in many cases, one of the side effects of the drugs is to precipitate death.

I have to say that when I remember the relief that I saw on my mother's and father's faces, I am inclined to support this bill and try to improve it.

This bill should be accompanied by a real national strategy on palliative care. In my opinion, some or all of the $3 billion that the Liberals promised for home care during the election campaign should have been included in the most recent budget. However, that is not the case.

Cancer can strike at any age and often there is no hope of recovery. Many other diseases produce similar effects of enduring and intolerable suffering without necessarily being life-threatening.

That is why I am also concerned about the fact that in this bill, the government did not use the wording in the conditions set out in the Supreme Court's decision. The Supreme Court basically said that Canadian adults who are able to consent and who have a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to them have the charter-protected right to physician-assisted death. That is the crux of the Carter decision, which gave rise to the bill that is before us today, Bill C-14.

What is the government trying to do today with this fourth criterion that it added, whereby the natural death has to be reasonably foreseeable? I have to admit to the House that in my mind at least, this is confusing. The terms are hard to define, the likely commendable goal being to seek the broadest consensus, even though that consensus already exists. If not, we would not be debating this bill. The Supreme Court likely would not have ruled the same way either if it had not sensed the evolution of this society.

We are about to undermine the process with such a vague and mandatory criterion because the legislation tells us that to have access to medical assistance in dying, the person absolutely must meet the four criteria set out in the legislation. The first three criteria are easy to understand, but the fourth is exceptionally vague.

I hope to see this fourth criterion disappear during our discussions in committee. With it, we are about to force those who are suffering to again demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the legislation, leading us right back to where we are today. We are here now, so let us see the work through and do it properly. Let us agree to ensure that this bill complies with the Constitution, that it will not be challenged later, and that those who wish to use it can finally do so.

Other questions remain practically unanswered, which is why the work coming up in committee after the bill passes second reading, I hope, is so important. As we point out in our supplementary opinion attached to the report, the government must adopt an approach to legislating medical assistance in dying based on the following principles: protecting vulnerable persons; taking into account the ethical concerns of all medical professionals; guaranteeing equal access to medical assistance in dying; protecting the conscientious objection of health care professionals; and respecting jurisdictions.

My time is running out, so I will conclude by saying that the NDP's job is to clarify the ambiguous provisions in the bill, strengthen the bill to avoid charter challenges, and demand stronger commitments with respect to palliative care and mental health care services to protect the most vulnerable Canadians. I can sense this in listening to my colleagues and all members of this House.

I am prepared to take questions from my esteemed colleagues.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I want to begin by saying how much I appreciate the tone of our exchanges today. It is inspiring and a change from our debates.

My question is quite simple and is on the example my colleague gave in her speech about one of her friends who stopped eating and drinking for six days in order to end his life. Although the Supreme Court's criteria are relatively clear in the legislation, the fourth element is rather vague in my opinion.

We are talking about natural death becoming reasonably foreseeable. Could my colleague provide some clarification on this fourth criterion? If someone meets the first three criteria, would he not be forced, once again, to stop drinking and eating in order to meet the four criteria to get the service he is seeking?

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his wonderful speech. I was listening carefully. He rightly brought up his own experience with the debate held in Quebec, and I think this experience is very important.

In Quebec, legislators realized that this law had to respect Quebec's own areas of jurisdiction, so they quickly started talking about end-of-life care, to ensure that the debate remained focused on health care.

Will the decision that we are making in Ottawa prevent unintended consequences that may not even have been considered in Quebec? For example, people are starving themselves to get access to end-of-life care.

By getting the legislation right in Ottawa, we can ensure that this legislation enables people who have serious medical concerns to make this decision. It always comes back to the issue of a reasonably foreseeable natural death. I agree with my colleague that this concept is rather vague. However, we do not want to have people starve themselves to access a service to which they are entitled.

[International Development, April 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, on April 24, 2013, more than 11,000 textile workers, most of them women, lost their lives in the worst industrial disaster in the history of Bangladesh.

Three years later, there is still much to be done to protect workers. Kalpona Akter, a courageous activist, is here in Ottawa to ask Canada to do its part.

What will the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie do to ensure that Bangladeshi businesses that are exempt from duties respect workers' rights?

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my seatmate for his very important question.

This is a fundamental problem. So many things were promised during the election campaign. I realize that it would have been difficult to draft a budget that met every commitment. However, that is why people are cynical about politics. When politicians promise something, it is because they have considered the commitments they should make. I imagine that they have also considered what kind of revenue would be needed to implement these measures. Members of the current government start many of their speeches by blaming the previous government. That is exactly the kind of thing that Canadians are sick of hearing. The government should make promises that it is able to keep. Politics will be better for it.