Mr. Speaker, this legislation contains no meaningful safeguards. Even its exceptions are full of holes: the written consent provision excludes those who cannot sign; the waiting period can be routinely waived; mental illness is not excluded; the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable would exclude no one; and the requirement that two doctors sign off merely encourages doctor shopping. Even if the already ambiguous criteria are not followed, someone who kills an unwilling patient can be let off the hook if he or she claims a reasonable but mistaken belief that the criteria applied.
Clearly, we have a perfect storm of ambiguous criteria and a reasonable but mistaken belief clause which means that it would be nearly impossible to prosecute anyone who kills a patient, even without consent.
Today I want to make three additional points: the decline of moral language, the need for advance review, and the way in which an absence of conscience protection is further undermining an already inadequate system of palliative care.
This debate has been characterized by a decline of language. Terms like “suicide”, “euthanasia”, and “killing” are rejected and replaced by fundamentally inaccurate phrases like “medical assistance in dying”. Every day physicians assist their patients in the context of dying without killing them.
The decline of language is also evident in the euphemistic use of terms like “dignity” and “compassion”. The phrase “dying with dignity” implies that suffering or disabled people do not have dignity, and this reflects a very dangerous world view. For a long time we have understood that dignity is immutable; it is an intrinsic characteristic of all human beings. Our immutable dignity is the reason we put down suffering dogs, but we do not put down suffering humans.
This human exceptionalism, this idea of universal and immutable human dignity is the basis of our conception of human rights. Human rights, the ostensible basis on which this legislation is advanced, stand on a moral foundation of universal immutable human dignity, and those who wish to redefine dignity so dramatically should at least provide us with their alternative definition.
I have encouraged the government to amend this legislation to include a system of advance review by competent legal authority. This could take many forms. It could involve review by a provincial consent and capacity board. It could involve a requirement for review by a judge. It could involve the simple requirement in this legislation that each province set up its own system of advance legal review or that an independent lawyer certified and retained for this purpose replace the role of one of the witnesses.
There are multiple options here, some better than others. The criteria are not worth the paper they are written on if someone with competent legal authority is not making a determination in advance to ensure the legal criteria are met.
The government, though, wants to force doctors into this role. However, doctors do not constitute competent legal authority. Doctors do not make these types of decisions in other parts of their work, given how aberrant the taking of life is from the normal medical process of protecting life, and the proposed legislation's allowance for doctor shopping does not actually mean that the doctor providing the prior care would provide advance review, since the patient, or worse, someone else, could simply go on the Internet to find a doctor with a more liberal interpretation of the criteria.
A simple system of advance legal review by competent authority would eliminate doctor shopping and achieve the central objective: it would ensure that people who have not consented or do not meet the criteria are not killed, without any effective means to investigate that after the fact. Data from Benelux countries show alarmingly high rates of euthanasia for patients who have not consented; however, prosecution of those who take life without consent in a medical environment is almost non-existent.
Finally, a lack of conscience protection pushes people out of the provision of palliative care when already far too few Canadians have access to it. Dr. Nancy Naylor, a family and palliative care physician with 40 years of experience, is now leaving the profession. She said, "I have no wish to stop, but I will not be told that I must go against my moral conscience." She is speaking out because her patients who will be left without access to palliative care cannot. What good does it do anyone to leave conscience protection out of this legislation, and chase good principled palliative care physicians out of the profession at a time when we need them most?
Many doctors say that this is not medical care at all, and we should let them focus on what they do best.
The Supreme Court decision punched a hole in the previous law, and this legislature cannot change that, but the government appears to be taking advantage of these events to widen the hole still further. No law would be a bad situation, but this law could make a bad situation worse. It would leave vulnerable seniors and sick and disabled persons at risk with no meaningful restrictions.
Stop the madness. Fix the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the honour of serving the people of Kitchener—Conestoga and being part of many important discussions and debates here in this chamber over the past 10 years. As members of Parliament, we are given the solemn obligation to chart the way forward for our great nation of Canada. The motions we table, the amendments we consider, the legislation we adopt will always impact, positively or negatively, the very people who elected us to represent them in the capital city of our nation, and they will also impact generations of Canadians to follow.
The impact of our deliberations and decisions we make on this critical life and death issue will impact the very fabric of our country. If I may say, it will leave a lasting legacy for good or for ill of our understanding of what it means to part of the human family.
Because of the very serious nature of the topic in front of us today, we, and by that I mean every member of this chamber, must take a step back and consider some very foundational questions. Each of us needs to ask ourselves these difficult questions. How we as members perceive these foundational issues is absolutely key to addressing this sobering topic before us today.
Consider with me for the next few moments these questions. What does it mean to be human? What gives human life meaning and value? Does every human life possess intrinsic value and dignity, regardless of perceived deformity, regardless of perceived disability, regardless of the perception of being a burden, regardless of whether or not a person may have achieved their best before date?
For me, the answer to all these questions is a resounding yes. Every human life is worthy of our utmost respect and protection. Every human life matters. Therefore, needless to say, I do not support physician-assisted suicide, or voluntary euthanasia or any legislation that would further devalue human life.
My world view is influenced by my life experiences, and most profoundly it has been shaped by my faith. I believe every human life has intrinsic value and dignity that needs to be held in high honour and esteemed, in other words, to be considered worthy.
There is a saying in the Talmud, “Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.”
On the Peace Tower of our Parliament Buildings carved in stone above the west window, members will find these words taken from ancient Hebrew writings in the book of Proverbs, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”
What is our vision for Canada? I ask each of my colleagues today what their vision is for Canada.
My vision for Canada is one where every human life is valued and cherished from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death. It is my firm belief that life is a gift from God and that this gift is far too precious to be discarded or destroyed. Every human life is filled with infinite value and, yes, every person, regardless of disability, deformity, depression, or devaluation based on criteria of so-called “usefulness” has something to teach us about what it means to be human.
For those who are suffering, we have the privilege to come alongside and care deeply. We provide proper pain relief, palliative care, human touch and love, in other words, we provide compassion.
The very meaning of the word compassion is “to suffer with”. It is to come alongside and enter into the suffering, to come alongside with feeling and care. Compassion is supporting them. It is to ignore the fact that compassion has everything to do with relationships if we are to allow physician-assisted suicide. We simply cannot have compassion if the relationship has been intentionally terminated.
That being said, the Supreme Court of Canada has established grounds for an exemption from prosecution for physicians who would assist in administering the suicide dose or carry out the act of euthanasia. The Supreme Court of Canada has done this, completely rejecting the fact that the elected members of the House of Commons have rejected initiatives to legalize physician-assisted suicide on at least 15 occasions since 1991. Most recently, a bill to allow physician-assisted suicide was rejected in 2010 by a vote of 59 to 226. My contention is that it is not the job of the Supreme Court to create laws but rather to interpret them.
I was one of the members of Parliament who served on the joint committee appointed to study physician-assisted dying. Our committee heard from many witnesses representing many different viewpoints. We heard from medical professionals, palliative care experts, mental health professionals, the disability community, the aboriginal community, various faith communities, legal and constitutional experts, and ethicists. As members might expect, from such a large variety of people, there was a very diverse response.
The unfortunate reality is that the timeline given to our committee for the completion of our report and recommendations did not allow for the large number of groups who wanted to appear before this committee. Groups like the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, L'Arche Canada, Living with Dignity, as well as Dr. Balfour Mount, who is considered to be the father of palliative care in Canada and in fact in North America, were not allowed to appear at all.
The joint committee report had no teeth when it came to insisting that before physician-assisted suicide could be offered or even considered in Canada, there should at the very least be a credible offer of accessible and affordable palliative care to those who faced such a final solution of hastened death. Like the committee report, Bill fails miserably in stepping up with real change on this crucial issue.
Dr. Harvey Chochinov, chair of the external panel, professor of psychiatry at the University of Manitoba, and Canada research chair for palliative care, suggests that all patients requesting medical aid in dying would need to have a palliative care consultation to ensure that patients would be fully informed of all palliative care options that could be initiated in order to mitigate the suffering of patients. To ignore the very real lack of choice without a concurrent real offer of palliative care is to offer no choice, only hastened death.
I am thankful that Bill has incorporated many of the viewpoints of the dissenting report. However, it still includes very vague and subjective language and does not address many key issues raised by witnesses who appeared before the joint committee.
A major concern in this entire discussion has been the overt attempts to soften the language. Rather than call it physician-assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, it was then referred to as physician-assisted dying. Even physicians objected vigorously to the term “physician-assisted dying”, especially palliative care physicians. For many decades these doctors have been assisting patients through the natural dying process.
It has been said that all social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering. We will find no better example of that verbal engineering than in the matter before us today. This topic is far too important to allow this vague and euphemistic language to go unchallenged. As Dr. Chochinov notes, Bill makes no distinction between physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, yet both are included in what the bill calls “medical assistance in dying”. It is extremely important to outline the difference, because international experience reveals that they are vastly different in terms of their uptake and lethality. In jurisdictions that offer only physician-assisted suicide, such as Oregon, these deaths account for about 0.3% of all deaths. In jurisdictions that offer euthanasia, hastened death accounts for approximately 3.0%, a tenfold increase.
If we were to extrapolate these figures to Canada where there are approximately 260,000 deaths per year, under a physician-assisted suicide regime, there would be approximately 780 deaths per year. However, if we were to extrapolate that to allow for euthanasia, the number of deaths would increase to 7,800 per year, which as I pointed out is a tenfold increase. The reason for the lower numbers under a physician-assisted suicide regime is ambivalence. It is crucial that at the very least the government needs to point out that if we are to proceed with this, we have to ask that those who request physician-assisted death must follow through on physician-assisted death rather than voluntary euthanasia because the numbers are so different.
Another key missing component is the matter of conscience protection for doctors and health care workers. If it is possible to ensure a “consistent approach to medical assistance in dying”, as the preamble asserts, there is no reason why at the same time a consistent approach to guarantee conscience rights cannot be included in Bill C-14.
Finally, Bill should include a system of judicial oversight in order to protect vulnerable persons. While two independent witnesses and two independent doctors sounds good on paper, the risks of overt or subtle coercion are too great and the possibility of abuse too real. These assertions need to be verified under a framework of legal oversight.
In summary, we should be offering hope to all Canadians. As legislators, we should be doing everything in our power to ensure that not one single person dies needlessly. It is with this in mind that I repeat the need for at least three major amendments to Bill : first, vulnerable Canadians need better protection with a system of judicial oversight; second, doctors, health care personnel and institutions need clear conscience protection; and, finally, Canadians who are suffering need a real option of palliative care not hastened death.
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for .
I want to begin by taking a moment to pay tribute to two Canadian women whom I did not know but have come to know in their deaths, and who I think are two of the most courageous women. They are Gloria Taylor and Kay Carter. These two women were on a journey of life that was not of their choosing, and they came to the point in their lives where they wanted some assistance in the final days of their lives in the final part of their journey.
As a United Church minister, I walked that journey with many people, hundreds of people in fact, and have done even more funerals where I did not know the people and only came to know them through the stories of their families and the legacy they left behind. Kay Carter and Gloria Taylor are two such women whose courage, tenacity, hopefulness, and love of life have instructed us to this very day, where we are now considering a bill on medical assistance in dying.
In paying tribute to them, I also want to give them thanks for engaging us in what is one of the best civics lessons that we could ever have as a chamber. Each of the branches of our government has a chance to speak to this. There is a legislative branch and a judicial branch, as well as the executive branch.
We actually began this conversation in 1982 where we invoked the charter that is now so much part of our Canadian culture of rights and freedoms. That charter has instructed all Canadians, Canada's courts, and Canada's legislators since the day it was passed. The reality is that when Kay Carter and Gloria Taylor made their appeal to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and it went to the Court of Appeal in B.C. and then to the Supreme Court of Canada, we had the opportunity to have our judicial branch take a look at their rights and the possibility of their having assistance in their deaths. The courts ruled on that and gave one year for the parliamentary branch and the executive branch to come up with a law.
The parliamentary branch then spoke by having a joint committee with the House and the Senate. I need to say to this chamber that it was probably the richest experience I have had as a member of Parliament. Men and women—senators and members of this House—engaging in a discussion, listening to the stories of life and of death and of healing and of hope, changed me profoundly. It gave me the opportunity to recognize that the parliamentary system that we have gives Canadians a great opportunity to hear their voices being heard at committee and now in this House.
The executive branch then picked up from the report and has presented Bill . I want to thank the minister for her work on this, and the work of her office and of justice, for taking the report that we did seriously, engaging in it further, and coming up with a piece of legislation that at this time I am very clear I will be supporting at second reading.
That does not mean that I think we are finished with this piece of legislation, because it is now back to the parliamentary system where we are to engage in the dialogue with the executive branch about making a law that could be good enough better. When we are dealing with issues of life and death, I do not think “good enough” is good enough. We can honour the quest that Gloria Taylor and Kay Carter engaged in and that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on and that the executive branch has presented a law on, and as parliamentarians take seriously the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, take it to our hearts and look at what it is that we as members of Parliament are sworn to. It is more than allegiance to Her Majesty. It is about upholding the Constitution of this country and engaging in it with love, with commitment, with passion, and with hope, and looking at how the decision that the Supreme Court made can actually live out in the life of Canada.
We have a piece of legislation that is before us today, and it was decided that section 7 of the charter could not be used to deny the rights of two women looking for assistance in their deaths. The government of the day tried to fight that section 7 declaration of rights by invoking section 1 of the charter, saying that there were reasonable grounds to withhold those rights. However, the Supreme Court of Canada did not allow that. It said it would be unreasonable to deny those rights to be given to those women. The court made a very specific decision on a very specific case at a specific time.
The Supreme Court also said in paragraph 127 of the decision that it did not pronounce on things that were not before it in that case. That was a requirement for Parliament and also the bill, which, yes, does engage all Canadians in a discussion about what it is that we can have as a continuum of care that continues to the place where we help people on that final journey.
We come at it differently. I have full respect for the hon. member for . He has engaged this subject well and I have taken into account the fact that he has passion. We have come at it differently, but I have no doubt that everyone on both sides of the House is concerned about the well-being of Canadians. However, I think the bill needs to go even further to be faithful to our Constitution.
I have concerns in that I think there could be further challenges to the bill in the courts, which I do not think Canadians should have to endure. I have a couple of very specific concerns that I would like to raise in the House and one is the use of the word “incurable”.
The court was very clear that it did not want to use the word “incurable”. Instead, it used the word “irremediable”. By invoking the word “incurable”, one begins to look at the disease instead of the person. What I mean by that is that sometimes a disease may be incurable or curable, but the person has the right, the Supreme Court said, not to undertake treatments that are not acceptable to that person. The treatments may be cruel or punishing and the reality is that the court said they do not need to undertake them. The disease may be curable, but that person has chosen a different path and that, under section 7, is their right. I have that concern about invoking that word.
The other concern I have is the introduction of the concept of foreseeable death or death in the foreseeable future. All of us live a precarious life. Life is fragile, life is precious, and life is dear, but for some life has become intolerable. Some diseases are not necessarily mortal in the sense that people are automatically going to their final days with that disease, but people still have pain that is intolerable. The Supreme Court decision in Carter says they have the right to medical assistance in dying.
The introduction of that concept of death in the foreseeable future has muddied the waters. Physicians are asking what it means. Does it mean “terminal”? Some hospitals have a different definition of “terminal” than other hospitals and other physicians have. We have to be very careful on that.
The third point I would make is about one of the safeguards. This is robust legislation. There are safeguards in place that I do not believe are of great concern. One safeguard worries me, and that is the final one in the third section on safeguards, proposed paragraph 241.2(3)(h), which says that immediately before the administration of those substances that will cause death, the person needs to, once again, declare competently that they want death to happen.
I have been in too many hospital rooms. I have sat with too many dying people. Most of the people who will access this kind of continuum of care are dying and will probably be receiving morphine. To take them off the morphine to ensure they have the capacity to give consent is cruel. The reality is that in a 15-day period, that person should be allowed to make a gracious exit and be given the compassion not to be once again required to become competent, because the morphine is helping them with their intolerable suffering. That they are suffering intolerably has already been declared.
With those exceptions, I am supportive of the bill. The justice committee has its work to do. I am looking forward to thorough deliberations. I have utter confidence in every member of that committee. I am looking forward to the bill returning to the House and going to the other place. I know that Canadians will have a law that helps them and makes Canada a richer and stronger country.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise today to speak about Bill medical assistance in dying.
Death is a word that elicits strong emotions. We celebrate life. We embrace life. We talk about living. However, we avoid talking about death. We shy away from those conversations because they make us uncomfortable.
It is my sincere hope that this legislation will open the door to conversations about end of life and palliative care, about dying with dignity, and death.
I first want to thank all Canadians who participated in consultations with their provinces and the federal government on this issue. I want to acknowledge the work of all members of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Death, who reported to Parliament at the end of February, and in particular my colleague, the member for , as well as the and the . I personally appreciate their sensitivity and thoughtful dialogue.
I listened to the and the when they spoke in the House on this bill. I have complete confidence in them to steward us as we begin the legislative process on Bill , as well as in conversations about death and dying.
This is an issue that we have struggled with for many years. I recall in the early 1990s when former MP compassionately took Sue Rodriguez's hand as she unsuccessfully sought permission from the Supreme Court to end her life as her ALS progressed.
The reasons for the need for this legislation are clear. The Supreme Court, in the Carter decision, unanimously decided that Canadians suffering intolerably have the right to request assistance to end their suffering.
With this legislation, the government has attempted to reach a balance, but, of course, in doing so will not please all people. Are there areas where the legislation does not go far enough? In my opinion, the answer is yes. Those with dementia will remain without an important option for end of life.
When on a journey with a terminal illness, there remains many questions pertaining to this legislation. I have no doubt that there will be fulsome discussion at committee on the legislation. I have received correspondence from residents concerned about implementation of this legislation by the territories and provinces. I am pleased that there will be additional study. This is just the beginning of the conversation, as it should be.
I know there are those who feel that this legislation goes too far. For the most part, I believe these people are fundamentally opposed to the Carter decision. However, regardless of where people fall on this legislation, I think we can all agree that the way we deal with death needs improvement.
Whether a grievously ill patient chooses to die at home, in a palliative care facility, or chooses medical assistance in dying, we should be having these conversations sooner, and lovingly assisting them in their end of life. These are not decisions that should be made during a health crisis, which is often the case. Rather, each of us should be engaged in advance care planning.
I recall, shortly before my father passed away a few years ago, sitting in his hospital room as he battled pneumonia. My sister and I had to talk to him about his wishes should his heart stop. As members can tell, it was one of the most difficult conversations that we ever had. While it was painful and heartbreaking, it was also necessary.
While I recognize that this legislation is not the same as deciding on a do-not-resuscitate order, talking about death is difficult. Talking about the death of a loved one is incredibly difficult. However, because it is difficult does not mean we should not talk about it. In fact, I would say that because it is difficult is the very reason we should talk about it.
We do such a poor job of educating people about their choices for end of life. There are choices. We also do a really poor job of making available those choices for end of life. For those who wish to die at home, there are a lack of resources available to them. For those wishing palliative care, those options too are limited.
I believe the federal government needs to work with the provinces and territories to develop a better framework for end-of-life care. Our platform has included a much-needed $3 billion over four years for home care and palliative care.
Today marks the beginning of National Hospice Palliative Care Week. Shortly after I was elected, I had the opportunity to visit Carpenter Hospice in Burlington, one of the only palliative care options available in Oakville and Burlington for those in the last days and months of their lives. While I was there, we not only talked about the wonderful facility, but we talked about how we as a society need to have more open conversations about death.
I was deeply touched by Bonnie Tompkin's story. She is a community health coordinator at Carpenter Hospice, but her story is a very personal one. When her fiancé Ian was diagnosed with terminal cancer, he was adamant that he wanted medical assistance in dying. As is common, his biggest concern was the burden he would place on loved ones as his illness progressed. After he saw Carpenter Hospice and was educated on the options available to him, he made the choice to spend his last days at the hospice.
Carpenter Hospice is actively working with the City of Burlington on adopting a compassionate city charter. Widely implemented in the United Kingdom, citizens in compassionate communities are engaged, knowledgeable, and informed about death, dying, loss, and bereavement.
As our health and well-being extends beyond our health care system to our friends and loved ones, our connections to public spaces, and those in community, the thinking behind the compassionate city charter is that the community plays a similar role at the end of life. To quote from the compassionate city charter:
Compassionate Cities are communities that recognize that all natural cycles of sickness and health, birth and death, and love and loss occur everyday within the orbits of its institutions and regular activities. A compassionate city is a community that recognizes that care for one another at times of crisis and loss is not simply a task solely for health and social services, but is everyone's responsibility.
Compassionate cities are supportive of diverse religious and cultural beliefs. I met with a couple in my riding who were concerned that this legislation would normalize suicide, but if we are building compassionate communities and talking about both life and death, then we can give people the tools they need, and options for life.
There was a time when we did not talk about cancer. That changed when a one-legged young man embarked on the cross-country Marathon of Hope on April 12, 1980, forcing us to acknowledge not only his cancer, but the fact that people with disabilities need not be hidden from view.
We are only now starting to have a conversation about mental health, another subject that until recently was only spoken about in hushed tones. In fact, today on Parliament Hill, there was a walk for mental health awareness.
Death is another taboo subject, and one we do not want to talk about. However, because we do not talk about it, we do a disservice to our friends and loved ones when the time comes to face their own mortality.
I recently had a conversation with one of my best friends about death and dying, about this legislation, what end-of-life care should be, and what is lacking. Her husband, my good friend, is living with a terminal illness, ALS. Another of my good friends is currently navigating his father's end-of-life journey. These conversations are very hard, but perhaps in having these conversations we will make it easier for all of us to have choices, dignified choices about how our lives will end.
Death will never be easy to talk about, nor should it be, but death needs to be as much a part of our conversation as is life. We need to talk about life options and death with dignity. The time is long overdue.
We should perhaps take a page from the compassionate city charter and acknowledge that how we deal with death, dying, loss, and bereavement should be shared with the entire community, in every city from coast to coast to coast.
Mr. Speaker, as I rise today, I feel a sense of gravity and strong emotion. This is not the first time. Two years ago, when I was a member of the National Assembly of Quebec, I rose to debate the extremely sensitive subject of medical assistance in dying. At the provincial level, the debate was about end-of-life care.
This is therefore the second time that I have participated in the debate and the vote on this extremely delicate subject, and I intend to do so with diligence, careful consideration, and a great deal of compassion.
Usually when I rise I want to convince. That is the job of all politicians, to convince people. In this case, I do not want to convince; I just want to talk and to explain where I stand. Also, in political debate there is good and there is bad. In this case, no one is good and no one is bad; they are only honest Canadian citizens who want the best for the future of this country and the best for the future of our people, even if this debate is quite difficult and fragile.
Why are we here today?
We are here because a year ago, in February 2015, the Supreme Court made a ruling that had very serious and important consequences. It was the Carter decision that centred on medically assisted death.
The Supreme Court did not ask the House of Commons and Canada's Parliament to take a position for or against medically assisted death, but to develop a legal framework for it. That is the principle underlying this whole debate. We are not here to debate whether medically assisted death is good or bad. We are here to figure out how to give people access to it.
However, I have often said, and I want to repeat now from my seat in the House, that I find it very unfortunate that the Supreme Court gave the Parliament of Canada just under a year to take action. That is completely irresponsible. I know what I am talking about. I was a member of the Quebec National Assembly for almost seven years. I was there for the six years of detailed, painstaking work that led up to the passage of Bill 52. It took six years and three different governments with three different premiers: the Hon. Jean Charest, the Hon. Pauline Maurois, and the Hon. Philippe Couillard. We worked on it for six years. There were two full years of direct consultation, and over 275 Quebeckers shared their opinions on the subject. However, the Supreme Court ordered the Parliament of Canada to take action within one year.
Why do I find that irresponsible? Because the Supreme Court knew that it was an election year and that this is not a subject for partisan political discussion. Despite all that, the Supreme Court ordered us to come up with legislation in under a year. The court knew that, as of February, the countdown was on to the month of June and that everything would then come to a grinding halt because the election was called for the fall and a new government would be taking office. In theory, parliamentarians could do nothing until December or January, and that proved to be true. In short, we lost six months in which we could have been debating this extremely important issue.
However, all was not lost. The previous government, led by the right hon. member for , set up a committee of three experts, including a former Quebec minister, whom I salute. This committee assessed all of the legal and parliamentary options regarding this sensitive issue and produced a document over 400 pages long. I am very proud to know that this work was done, despite the fact that it was an election year. I will come back to that a little later in my speech.
The report was written, but there was an election, and the new government created a parliamentary committee that could be described as bilateral, since it was made up of MPs and senators. The committee was co-chaired by a Liberal MP and a Conservative senator. Basically, the foundation for non-partisanship was laid, so that was good.
Despite the fact that we had very little time to do our work, in fact barely five or six weeks, we had 13 meetings, we heard from 61 witnesses, and 132 briefs were submitted. That is great, considering the time we had. I want to commend all of my colleagues who are here. I see the House co-chair, as well as my colleague from Toronto. I apologize, but I do not know all the riding names by heart. The names are very long, and perhaps we should change that one day, but that is another matter altogether.
I want to commend all of my colleagues for working in such a positive, constructive, and non-partisan manner. It was an extremely delicate and difficult subject, but we took a serious and thorough look at it.
After all our work, two reports were produced: a main report and a dissenting report signed by the member for , the member for , the member for , and me.
Before I get into the substance of the dissenting report, which I signed, I want to point out that the Conservative MPs on the committee were the ones who signed it. However, it was not a Conservative dissenting report, since the Conservative senators did in fact sign the main report.
Let there be no mistake: in this case the dissenting report was not a Conservative dissenting report. It was a dissenting report from members of Parliament, because the Conservative senators signed the majority report.
It is very clear, and we have to be very careful with that. There was not a political agenda behind our dissenting report.
In the dissenting report, my three colleagues and I were driven by the need to protect the most vulnerable, but also by Carter and especially by what we referred to in our report as “the Quebec experience”.
I am proud to say that I witnessed the Quebec experience. Together, we applied that experience in the dissenting report and used it as a model in determining what should be done. We did that because in Quebec, we took our time to address this issue properly.
In Quebec, after six years of debate, work, intellectual rigour, and careful consideration, we came to certain conclusions. Bill 52 became law to ensure that everything is done properly with a certain social consensus.
It is very tough to have consensus on this difficult issue.
Our dissenting report outlined five concerns. I will read them, then go over them one by one.
First, we felt that end-of-life care should not be provided to minors. Second, we established that people suffering from mental illness should not have access to medical assistance in dying. Third, we raised the need to protect the conscience of doctors and health care professionals. Fourth, medical assistance in dying should be provided only to people at the end of their life. Lastly, we had some serious concern over palliative care. Those are the five concerns outlined in our dissenting report. Let us look at them one by one.
First, this should not apply to minors. This is a very sensitive topic. The Supreme Court was talking about adults, not minors. What is more, the Quebec experience applied only to adults. This otherwise creates almost insurmountable problems.
Imagine if the parents of a 16-year-old son or daughter refuse to allow their child to receive end-of-life care. What then? Who is right, the child or the parents?
In the worst case scenario, if a 17-year-old child asks for end of life care, which his father wants but not his mother, who is right? Do we try to convince the mother? That is so difficult, so touchy, so fragile.
That is why our dissenting report put aside minors, aided by the Quebec experience.
We do not want this bill on medical assistance in dying to apply to people with mental illness because it is almost impossible to determine at what point they are capable of giving informed consent. People with mental illness are unaware of what is happening. I know that it is terrible to say such things, but it is the truth.
This is the truth. For those who suffer from mental illness, it is very tough and difficult for them to be very clear on what they want to do. If we were to put them in that kind of situation, we would see the worst. Again, based on the Quebec experience, we put it aside.
Let us now discuss conscience protections for physicians and health care practitioners. This is a delicate but very important subject. Quebec came up with a rather unique solution, and one that the government should use as a model.
We must respect the patient who, in his heart and soul, wants to receive end-of-life care. However, we must also respect the physician who must provide this care. If the physician does not want to proceed, we must respect that. This is Quebec's solution: the physician who does not want to provide this care must refer his patient to a third party, namely, the administrator of the hospital or CLSC, and this third party will refer the patient to another physician. Thus, a physician does not refer his patient to another physician because a third party is involved. Consequently, a physician who is uncomfortable dealing with this situation does not find himself referring his patient to another physician. This decision must be respected. This is a detail, but it is all about the details in this bill and the entire medical assistance in dying situation. We must have conscience protections.
Once again, based on the Quebec experience, we believe that the same is true with respect to the end of life. At what point can patients give their consent to medical assistance in dying?
Quebec, after examining this issue for six years, concluded that patients were able to give consent at the end of their life and not before. It is quite easy for a guy like me, who is 51 years old, in good shape, and feeling well, to say that if I ever get sick, no problem, the doctors will come and that will be it. It is easy for me to say that at the age of 51, when I am in good health. However, will I feel the same way when I am at the very end of my life? Not necessarily, which is why we need protections in this area. Once again, there are five concerns based on the Quebec experience. The fourth one has to do with the fact that Quebec makes it clear that only patients who are receiving end-of-life care may receive this type of medical assistance.
The last concern is palliative care. My colleague from the second opposition party spoke about this earlier. We believe it is extremely important to have full, comprehensive palliative care for all Canadians, and not just for one-third of Canadians, as is the case now. We really need to focus on this.
There was the main report, the dissenting report, and the five concerns I mentioned, which were based on safeguards for the most vulnerable, the Carter decision, and the Quebec experience. After we presented our report, it was up to the government to proceed and introduce its bill.
Therefore, what we have now is Bill . What we like in the bill is what it does not have. That is funny to say, but it is true, because the bill put aside some of the most touchy subjects that we put in our dissenting report.
In our dissenting report, we did not want medical assistance in dying to be available to minors or people suffering from mental illness. The government embraced our position, which is good. We thank it for that. Congratulations.
However, we still have some other concerns regarding this bill, particularly when it comes to conscience protection. This bill contains no provisions regarding the protection of conscience for doctors and other medical practitioners, including nurses and pharmacists, in the context of medical assistance in dying.
I asked the about this during the debate two weeks ago. She said that it was not mentioned because it falls within provincial jurisdiction. Technically, that is true, but we are in a federal Parliament. The bill's own preamble clearly states that the law must adapt and apply consistently all across Canada. We need to have a national policy in order to avoid fluctuations from province to province. Once again, I urge the government to learn from the Quebec experience, which allows for the protection of conscience for doctors.
What will happen if that protection is not ensured? It will be left up to the provinces to decide whether they want to provide, or not, a framework for this in a particular way. I understand the goodwill of the , but there is such a thing as too much vagueness. In this situation, we are not talking about deciding between an apple and an orange; we are talking about deciding whether to live or die. Vagueness is unacceptable in this situation. We need to provide clear guidelines, particularly regarding conscience protection, because there is nothing that is more fragile and more precious than the conscience of someone who is there to save lives or end lives, depending on the patient's wishes.
I invite the government to take a closer look at the Quebec experience and really take note of that experience, as well as what we have said.
As I mentioned earlier, in Quebec it is clear that this type of care is provided at the end of life. In the legislation we find the concept of “reasonably foreseeable”. I have to read that because I have been asked about this a number of times and I always have a hard time because it is a bit vague.
I can assure the House of one thing: I am going to die. That is foreseeable. There is no doubt. I am 51 and I think I have done more than I have left to do. Reasonably, I could die in a few decades. I am in no hurry, by the way.
What I am trying to say is that “reasonably foreseeable” is not clear. The first question I was asked in an interview on RDI by Julie Drolet, a former colleague whom I salute, was whether I really understand this “reasonably foreseeable”. Well, the answer is no, not really. That being said, I am not the one who drafted the legislation. Perhaps we need to ask the minister that question.
All that to say that this needs to be clear, as does “conscience protection”. The same goes for end-of-life and what is reasonably foreseeable. It is much too vague.
During an interview last weekend on Radio-Canada's political television show, Les coulisses du pouvoir, Quebec's health minister, Dr. Gaétan Barrette, said there could certainly be a debate about the legality of this bill with respect to the notion of reasonably foreseeable death. He added that it should be reasonably foreseeable regardless of the prognosis on the progression of the disease. After all, if death is reasonably foreseeable, that means a prognosis has been reasonably established.
In situations like that, there is no clear answer. I would ask the government reasonably, no pun intended, to clarify its thinking on this.
There is a similar issue with regard to nurses and doctors. They say that nurses can provide the care. I want to be very clear. I have tremendous respect for nurses. Based on my experience in Quebec, they are the ones who keep the health system going, and I thank them for that. However, we think that a diagnosis of this importance needs to come from a doctor. People might think I am saying the same thing over and over again, but that is the conclusion drawn from the Quebec experience after six years of thorough, serious work.
With respect to palliative care, we all agree that more money should go to that. I would like to point out that the latest budget allocated no money to palliative care, even though that is an extremely important and sensitive subject. In a press conference, the talked about allocating $3 billion. That is very nice, but we would like to see that in the budget. The government can be sure we would support that enthusiastically.
Nothing is perfect, especially this bill, but we should be very concerned about that. We should be very concerned, because if we do not adopt a law, good or bad, we will have to deal with the Carter decision. For some people, it will be the worst-case scenario, because in that case, the medical professional associations in some provinces will say one thing and the associations in other provinces will say another thing; some provincial legislatures will adopt certain bills and other legislatures will adopt other bills. There will be a lot of movement in Canada in that case and the last thing we want is movement. We need a clear bill on those issues.
I want to say that this is obviously a very emotional debate. Everyone who speaks to this issue will be right. They have the right to do so and we hope they will. No one here is wrong, no one here is right. We are all honest Canadians and we want to do what is best for the future of this country and for the future of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill regarding medical assistance in dying. This is not the first time I have had the honour to participate in the discussion of this matter as a member of Parliament. I also was a member of the Special Joint Committee on Physician Assisted Dying. As a member of that committee, I was able to hear the thoughts of many people, both in my riding of Toronto-Danforth and across the country, on this very important issue that affects us all, and that is our end-of-life care.
My preference would have been for a bill that would have allowed for a broader scope of application. However, I support this legislation because it is a first step in the right direction, and it was a commitment to study the important issues of age, mental health, and advance directives, as will become apparent as I speak further. We need to take this first step, because this file has been left to languish for too long. My step would have been a bit bigger, but I am ready to start here on this path of incremental change.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to share my time with the member for .
To date, we have struggled with the question of whether to allow, or not, medical assistance in dying. However, now we are faced with a different question, specifically, how we are going to legislate that assistance. This is an important change for us to consider, because following the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter, medical assistance in dying will be legal as of June 6. This bill is important because it gives us the opportunity to create a federal framework to govern medical assistance in dying.
In 1983, the Law Reform Commission of Canada reported on “Euthanasia, Aiding Suicide and Cessation of Treatment”. It found three basic principles reflected in our law, and I find that these principles set a good basis for our debate. The first is that the protection of human life is a fundamental value. The second is that patients have the right to autonomy and self-determination in making decisions about their medical care. The third is that human life needs to be considered from a quantitative and qualitative perspective.
I find it particularly instructive that the second principle creates a basis for a patient-centred approach to medical assistance in dying. This was the approach adopted by the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying on which I served.
Looking at the history of this issue, I have traced a long path of private members' bills, Senate bills, and private motions in the House. The issue has been before us approximately 11 times since 1991. The list of past attempts on this issue is incredible and demonstrates that efforts that have been made to grapple, unsuccessfully, with this issue have continued for too long. It is why I find it so important for the House to cross over this impasse and to take the first step toward legislating a framework.
The issue has not only been before us here. The other place has also considered the matter in committees, subcommittees, and bills. Just over 20 years ago, the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide released its report “Of Life and Death”.
The goal of that committee was to set the stage for the national debate that would take place in the years to come. The majority of senators on the committee were not ready to support medical assistance in dying. The minority on that committee made some recommendations to support medical assistance in dying for an individual who was competent and suffering from an irreversible illness that had reached an intolerable stage, as certified by medical practitioners.
Over the weekend, I finished reading the Hon. Steven Fletcher's book, Master of My Fate, which outlines his experience as a parliamentarian, generally, but focuses upon private members' bills that he brought on the issue of medical assistance in dying. The book brought special insight into his journey on this question. He shared his story of the massive accident that rendered him quadriplegic and his election to the House, including the time he served as a cabinet minister.
Our most recent initiative in the House on the issue of medical assistance in dying was two connected private members' bills put forth by the Hon. Mr. Fletcher. The first, Bill , proposed to amend the Criminal Code to permit a doctor to assist a person in taking his or her own life. The eligibility criteria proposed in the bill would track the language in Carter very closely. I will read the most salient eligibility criterion for the sake of the House:
...a person must...have been diagnosed by a physician as having an illness, a disease or a disability (including disability arising from traumatic injury) that causes physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to that person and that cannot be alleviated by any medical treatment acceptable to that person, or the person must be in a state of weakening capacities with no chance of improvement...
His other initiative, Bill , proposed to establish a Canadian commission on physician-assisted death, which would have collected data from physicians who performed physician-assisted death. It recognized the possibility for incremental steps.
The bills were read a first time and left to languish on the Order Paper. However, on December 2, 2014, similar legislation was introduced in the other place and was debated on seven occasions, as late as June 2, 2015.
As we all know, during that time frame of December 2, 2014, to June 2, 2015, the Carter decision was released.
It is also worth noting that there have been active discussions in our provinces and territories about a framework for medical assistance in dying. The most notable example is Quebec, which struck a committee in 2009 to develop legislation on medical assistance in dying. The legislation came into effect in December of 2015. Much has been said regarding that law, and I will not repeat it, but it is notable that they too have a terminality provision.
I found it interesting that in testimony before our committee, Jean-Pierre Ménard of the Barreau du Québec stated that he believed the terminality clause of the Quebec legislation would have to be removed in light of the Carter decision. It underscores the point that such legislation will develop through incremental changes.
Working on the joint committee was an amazing experience. It was the first special joint committee in 20 years, and I see a strong value to this form of collaboration on major issues. The witness testimony and the thoughtful written submissions gave us a strong base upon which to form our recommendations. I stand behind the recommendations that we made. We did not come to our decisions easily. We lost sleep, debated a lot, and worked together to formulate our recommendations.
How then does my background on this file inform my views of the legislation we are debating today? I would have preferred that it be broader. Most of what I have heard from my own constituents favours a broader approach. However, the bill is the first step into a complicated matter.
We need to empower individuals to choose how to manage the end of their lives and give value to the law reform commission's idea of a patient-centred approach. Also, we need to consider not only the quantity of life but the quality. We need to respect people's autonomy and their right to be free from suffering, without putting vulnerable Canadians at risk. Bill gets us much closer to that goal than we currently find ourselves.
I would have preferred that we remove the clause of a reasonable and natural death, which refers to the foreseeability of a natural death. It is a terminality clause of sorts. The clause is vague and could place an overly broad restriction on a sick person's right to be free from pain and suffering. The concern about this terminology is that it tends to devalue the lives of the oldest among us. They are the most likely to be given permission to seek medical assistance in death with the legislation.
The young and sick suffer as much as the elderly. To quote Steven Fletcher “If the person is a cognitive adult, why on earth would we impose our views on what their quality of life is on them?”
The lack of advance directives in the legislation is also too restrictive. A fundamental point of the Carter decision was that the Supreme Court of Canada had found a violation of “Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person” if individuals would feel they would have to cut their lives short because they did not have an expectation that they could end it later when the time would come. It is a tricky issue, but I am happy to see a commitment to study the issue further.
In my opinion, the positives of the bill outnumber the negatives, so I will be supporting the bill. However, I do see it as a first step on the journey.
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to address Bill . This bill is a response to the Supreme Court of Canada's unanimous ruling in the case of Carter v. Canada. The Supreme Court mandated that the Government of Canada create a framework for the provision of medical assistance in dying within a year of the ruling. That time lapsed on February 6, 2016, and an extension was granted until June 6, 2016.
The Supreme Court gave our government a short time in which to study this challenging and historic issue. I have listened to constituents who have argued passionately on both sides of this debate. I have struggled with the moral and ethical implications of this legislation. I understand that this is an emotionally charged and challenging topic.
Civilized societies have always recognized the sanctity of life. Countries around the world have legislated against the taking of another person's life. Historically, the taking of life has been considered to be the worst of crimes. The issue of medical assistance in dying poses a complex challenge to all Canadians because it brings together several different and difficult issues. There are questions of charter rights and personal freedoms. There are questions of protecting the vulnerable and responding to those who are enduring intolerable pain. There are theological, moral, and ethical considerations.
As well, this issue is an emotional one, fraught with the feelings of those who take strong positions on either side of the debate, and leavened by the feelings of those people who are experiencing such grievous suffering that they no longer wish to continue living.
Another element is purely economic, whether it is the pressures of inheritance or financial instability or the overwhelming cost of health care during the end of life. While we do not like to cite these utilitarian perspectives, their existence cannot be denied.
As well, this debate touches upon one's vision of a just society, whether one feels that ultimate justice involves complete choice or whether one feels that justice is best served by sometimes limiting the avenues available to a person so as to keep open the possibility of a happier tomorrow, a more desirable future, one that can be looked forward to rather than dreaded. I feel that this legislation finds a balance between these two perspectives, allowing choice to those who wish to end their grievous suffering and are already far along the path to dying and protecting those who may be vulnerable.
The ruling in Carter v. Canada was expressly limited to a competent adult person who clearly consents to the termination of his or her life. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Canada did not find that there was a right to medical assistance in dying for minors or persons with psychiatric disorders. I was greatly relieved that these provisions were not included in this legislation.
To ensure that the path to the end is as fair and secure as possible, it is imperative that we accompany any legislation for medical assistance with enhanced support for palliative care. All parliamentarians have stories to share with respect to their engagement with people. We have interactions that have a profound impact upon us and never leave us.
On the campaign trail, I had the opportunity to visit a number of long-term care facilities. On one of these occasions, after the candidates gave speeches, there was an opportunity to mingle. I approached a man, who handed me a piece of paper. It was a petition for more personal support workers. He had tears in his eyes as he asked me to sign the petition. I sat with him and he explained his situation. He was there caring for his wife, who was beside him in a wheelchair. She had endured a serious stroke. This man was not advocating for his wife, as he was there every waking hour to take care of her, but he was advocating for others whom he witnessed daily not getting the care they needed. This was just not fair, not right, and clearly not just.
We have serious work to do in palliative care, which is connected to home care. Our government has pledged $3 billion to home care, and I am strongly encouraged by the health minister's commitment to see that high-quality home care is accessible to all Canadians. I look forward to engaging my colleagues in these debates and fighting for greatly enhanced palliative care for Canadians.
I have spent the last 20 years working with youth as a chaplain in high schools in Hamilton and Ancaster, Ontario. During this time, I have walked with thousands of students as they have negotiated the difficult terrain of adolescence and early adulthood. Their struggles are real, and the burdens they carry through family difficulty, personal struggles with identity, emotional pain, loneliness, rejection, or alienation are all real.
Young people face a complex and often overwhelming world in their physical neighbourhoods, in the relationships they inhabit, and in the virtual worlds in which they are thrown head first, often not ready. One only has to look at the terrible cases of online bullying that have removed the joy from the lives of young people and replaced it with sadness, depression, and in some cases suicide. I believe in our youth. I have spent my life believing for them and in them when they have sometimes stopped believing in themselves. I have made it my life's work. Amazingly, although their worlds sometimes sombred into darkest night and they feared that any light might have been extinguished forever, together we found a glimmer, a flicker that with love, inclusion, acceptance, and safety grew into a flame and then a roaring fire, not only of hope but of a desire to change the world, to bring healing to others who suffer and are rejected. These same teenagers have now stepped up and become leaders with a conviction to change the world. If assisted dying had been available to them when they were in the depths of their depression, they might not be with us today.
I am pleased that this legislation does not include mature minors, and I call for a renewed focus on creating a better, happier, more secure, and stabler world for our young people, online and in the physical world.
I have debated the morality of the question of medical assistance in dying. There are many who believe that in good conscience they cannot support assisted dying. For those who feel this way, I wish to address the issue of conscience.
People often equate conscience with values and beliefs. While conscience most certainly includes these, it also is much more complex. Conscience is at the very core of who we are as people. Conscience deals with reality. It appreciates the facts that are before us. The facts here are that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that medical assistance in dying is a charter right. We are not faced with the question of whether we allow medical assistance in dying; rather, we are faced with the question of in what conditions we will allow medical assistance in dying.
In my view, the bill before us is narrow in scope and respects the charter as interpreted in Carter v. Canada. Bill fulfills the legislative mandate delivered by the Supreme Court in a way that meets the charter but attempts to protect the vulnerable and the powerless. Although we can never fully protect the vulnerable, we can do our best. This is what Bill does.
Finally, I wish to affirm my support for respecting the personal values and beliefs of doctors and nurses and the mission statements upon which some institutions were created.
As the has said, and I quote:
To this end, as I have already mentioned, my colleague, the Minister of Health, will be working with her counterparts to bring forward a coordinated system for linking patients to willing providers.
As is outlined in the government preamble to this bill, the Government of Canada has committed to developing non-legislative measures that will “respect the personal convictions of health care providers”. As the has indicated, “Practitioners will have the right to choose as their conscience dictates”.
I will continue to fight for the protection of the rights of morally objecting physicians and institutions while ensuring access for patients to their charter rights.
In light of all of these arguments, I stand in this House today in support of this fair and thoughtful legislation.