House Publications

     moved for leave to introduce Bill C-260, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.

     He said: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to rise today to table my private member's bill, Bill C-260, entitled an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act. The title of the bill may sound simple, and that is intentional. That is because it is simple. The bill intends to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act to allow Canadians to order and enjoy their favourite wine, spirit or craft beer from any province or territory from sea to sea to sea, without restriction, delivered to their doorstep by the fine employees of Canada Post.

    As it currently stands, many Canadians cannot find their preferred wine, spirit or craft beer on the shelf of their local stores, and Canadian producers are unable to ship their product because of these archaic and outdated interprovincial restrictions that continue to vex this country. This not only stands in the way of the enjoyment of these products by all Canadians, but also hurts these small and medium-sized businesses by limiting who they can sell and ship to.

    The COVID-19 pandemic has made it clear that Canadians feel more comfortable and safe shopping online or over the phone. This simple amendment would not only increase the happiness of Canadians and allow them to shop safely, but also help the small businesses that are seeing a sharp decrease in their local foot traffic because of the pandemic.

    I am confident that all members in this place will join me in supporting this bill to enact a simple amendment and open the taps to all Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, I am rising today in Parliament to present a petition dealing with an issue that is of grave concern to many constituents. It is the issue of neonicotinoid insecticides and particularly their impact on pollinators. The petitioners call on the government to take action to follow the lead of the European Union, adhere to the cautionary principle and ban the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House this morning to present a petition signed by Canadians who want to remind the government that the Chinese Communist Party has committed crimes against the Falun Gong community. The petitioners want the people involved in these crimes to be sanctioned under the Magnitsky Law.

    I will read part of the petition:

    Members of Falun Gong have been making representations for years, and a number of MPs from all parties have supported their requests. Today I am pleased to table this petition in the House.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from young people from across my riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay and the neighbouring riding of Kootenay—Columbia. These young people are concerned about the increasing impacts of climate change. They point out that the government's targets and actions are woefully inadequate, and they want jobs that are sustainable, not for short-term gain at the expense of future generations.

    The petitioners ask the government to support their future with a detailed climate strategy based on science. They want to eliminate fossil fuels subsidies and redirect those funds to renewable energy, energy efficiency, low-carbon transportation and job training.

    Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

    Is that agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Mr. Speaker, it my pleasure to rise on behalf of the Conservative Party on probably the most important bill before this Parliament. I say that, without knowing how long this Parliament will run, because this is a decision with respect to the state interacting with one of its citizens at end of life.

    This is probably one of the most important debates this Parliament will have, and if there is commentary coming from the government or from some pundits on why we are late and why we are approaching a time limit, that was entirely in the hands of the government for three reasons.

    First, the government decided, with no reason and no grounds, to prorogue Parliament. We lost several months that could have been spent having substantive and compassionate debate on Bill C-7 and a range of other things.

    Second, the bill results from a Superior Court judgment in Quebec, and normally something so fundamental would have been appealed to two higher courts: the Court of Appeal in Quebec and the Supreme Court of Canada. That was not done, and it should have been. Most legal observers believe this should have been the case.

    Finally, as we may hear from the government and the Attorney General today, they could have asked for more time, given the prorogation, their own delays and the pandemic. I think they will end up doing that today, and that is appropriate.

    We are getting close to the deadline for this bill because of the government's inaction. The government was slow to appeal a Quebec court decision. The government also prorogued Parliament. That is why we are so close to a deadline set by a Quebec court decision.

    As I said when I spoke to the previous bill, now Bill C-7, four and a half to five years ago, when we debate the role of the state at the end of life of one of its citizens, there is compassion on both sides. There are people who do not want to see the suffering of someone near the end of life.

    I will speak to the Sue Rodriguez case, when the Supreme Court was first charged with this. Someone with ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease, loses their physical abilities and is confined in a horrible way. Approaching end of life, are they able to consent in the same way that someone would otherwise and make their own decisions about end of life?

    There is compassion from people who want the well-being of their loved ones to be provided for. There is also compassion from people who are concerned about the state making determinations about quality of life. In fact, the justice in Quebec quoted many speeches from the last Parliament on the previous bill, following the Carter decision, including my speech. I talked about the concerns of a slippery slope and that we would be back in a few years. I said more vulnerable people might be swept into a law, and I am sad to say that is exactly where we are.

    As a parliamentarian, a lawyer, a father and the son of a brave woman who fought cancer, with profound memories of her from the palliative stage of that disease when I was nine, I am here to make sure the bill is debated properly and that safeguards are provided. Anyone who suggests we should be rushing this debate does not understand how profound it is.

    Today's debate should be approached with respect and compassion. It is not a normal debate on normal policies. We are talking about the power of the government to take away a person's life at that person's request. It is a very serious action, and the debate that seeks to establish an appropriate legal framework is a necessary one. We are talking here about the value of human life, about human dignity.

    I know that people on both sides of this debate have good intentions, but I am concerned that the bill is a first dent in the value we place on life. It is a slippery slope that we should not be taking with such a vague law and no safeguards.

    In the Rodriguez decision, Justice Sopinka, who represented the Supreme Court at the time in the 1990s, talked about the distinction of a passive role of the state and an active role of the state at the end of life. “Passive” refers to palliative care, assistance with pain and, potentially, non-intervention, do not resuscitate, but the active role, when the state takes that role, attaches to section 7 of the charter, which is based on human dignity. The Attorney General clerked under Peter Cory of the same court, and in fact, the McLachlin and Cory dissents both focused on human dignity with respect to section 7 of the charter.

    All of them talked about the role of the state in protecting the decisionally vulnerable, as they were called, people who could be pushed into end-of-life treatment because they felt they were a burden. This has been talked about since the 1990s, and this Attorney General is removing the safeguards from our regime. Every ounce of case law on the issue of assisted dying, euthanasia or assisted suicide talks about protecting those vulnerable.

    That went on in the Carter decision, which reinterpreted and changed the stare decisis, the precedent of the Rodriguez decision, because of societal norms, but the one thing that did not change was the need for safeguards. In fact, the Carter court said that a “carefully designed...system of safeguards” was required and that they would be scrupulously monitored.

    That is the only way the Carter decision changed the Rodriguez decision and allowed there to be assisted dying in Canada. However, Bill C-7 does not provide for assisted dying. It provides for assisted suicide, where the end of life, the reasonably foreseeable death, is removed entirely, and it removes the safeguards that every decision of the court on this subject has said are fundamental to the state having a role at end of life.

    The Attorney General seems to be out of touch with the entire body of case law with respect to assisted death. I think it is shameful that he is not allowing reasonable amendments to reinsert a scrupulous approach to the vulnerable. He is removing the 10-day waiting period. There is no coming back from this decision, and when the state plays an active role in the death of its citizens, the two-witness requirement is also removed.

    The Attorney General, who is entirely out of touch with the case law in Canada, out of touch with the decision of Mr. Cory whom he clerked for, is rushing something, suggesting we are being unreasonable, when all Conservatives want to do is safeguard the decisionally vulnerable, something both Supreme Court decisions in Rodriguez and Carter said was critical to human dignity, section 7 of the charter. All disability groups are opposed to this bill the way the government is presenting it because of the removal of safeguards and because of the redefinition.

    Inclusion Canada's Krista Carr said:

    One of the leading scholars, which I would invite the Attorney General to review, Professor Grant from the University of British Columbia, said:

    The government is a little upset the Conservative caucus is demanding what two decisions of the Supreme Court have demanded and is asking for, reasonably, what section 7 of the charter is built upon, which is dignity of life, to make sure we do not change the regime in a manner I spoke about five years ago: a slippery slope for the decisionally vulnerable such as the elderly isolated in a home.

    We heard testimony of some people feeling like they were pushed or pressured because of the cost or lack of institutional care. Some of the professors and some of the indigenous witnesses who have raised concerns also raise concerns about generational trauma, residential schools and people who are facing that trauma and pain in their lives. Is the state then going to provide assisted suicide as a tool or should we help these people?

    This is about compassion. This is about an appropriate role for the state. This is not about fundamentally changing a regime that has only been in place for a few years.

    I said at the outset there is compassion on both sides, but there is an entirely out-of-step approach from the Attorney General. In fact, the former attorney general, the member for Vancouver Granville, has also criticized the reckless approach of this Attorney General with respect to the post-Carter decision regime, because he would be removing the safeguards both courts have said need to be scrupulously monitored: 10 days, a few witnesses.

    All major disability groups in Canada agree with the compassionate and reasonable position being presented by my Conservative colleagues. I am very proud of the advocacy we have shown. We have also been joined by legal scholars, indigenous leaders and people working with people with mental health issues. I have worked on mental health and suicide prevention for many years since my time in the military.

    We are also not providing enough palliative care support. Going back to the original Rodriguez framework, where Justice Sopinka talked about the passive role of the state, allowing someone's life to end without pain and to be present, allowing family gathering at palliative, we are not doing that well enough.

    The government has actually violated the spirit of the Carter decision by removing the safeguards. Remember, the safeguards, the carefully designed safeguards, were fundamental to the Supreme Court Carter decision change from Rodriguez. Why after a few years would the government remove those, particularly when some of the vulnerable Canadians, seniors and disability rights advocates, have said they feel under attack? In fact, another comment Ms. Carr made is that Bill C-7 is their “worst nightmare”.

    What is the job of Parliament? We are not just delegates here to be polled. We are here to bring our perspective in the Burkean tradition of being passionate representatives for our communities, our families, our values and our points of view. I cannot think of a more important debate for us to bring those values.

    As the Supreme Court said back in Rodriguez and throughout, this is about human dignity with respect to access to section 7. The early debate, both in Carter and Rodriguez, was always that we cannot have an unfairness for someone who cannot physically make a decision about end-of-life suicide, so we have to have an approach. That was McLachlin's approach in the dissent in Rodriguez. She thought that choice was cruel with respect to Sue Rodriguez.

    It was never about just having a widespread approach to assisted suicide with no irremediable or reasonably foreseeable death being a part of it. Now this is opening up a state-run regime with respect to suicide, with vague terms about grievous conditions or just disability writ large. The same concerns I raised reasonably a few years ago around people with mental health issues, who could get help if we are there for them, or people who are decisionally vulnerable, as the court said for now a generation, are why the safeguards are there.

    The government should not lecture us about timelines when it prorogued Parliament and when it did not appeal a superior court decision on a fundamental issue just a few years after the Supreme Court ruled in Carter. It is now ignoring disability advocates. It is ignoring indigenous leaders. It is ignoring physicians, legal scholars and the opposition. What are we demanding? We are not saying eliminate the system that was established in the last Parliament. We are saying to maintain the safeguards. There would be no Supreme Court right under section 7 of the charter were it not for the safeguards.

    I am proud that the Conservative opposition is not going to step away and allow our vulnerable to be forgotten. We are going to scrupulously maintain the safeguards that the state should have when we are making profound decisions about the end of life of our citizens. We are here for the people without a voice. We are here for the people who might feel coerced, in isolation during a pandemic, into an end-of-life regime without full capacity and consent.

    If we step outside the bubble, I do not care what political party one belongs to or associates with, all Canadians want to make sure the vulnerable are provided for. That is all we are asking. If we have to stay here for 24 hours a day, seven days a week to stand up for those Canadians, we will do that.

    Who is being unreasonable? Is it the Attorney General, who does not understand the entire body of jurisprudence with respect to assisted death? I am actually very disappointed. He was a law professor at McGill and seems to have not read the Rodriguez and Carter decisions. He is removing safeguards that are fundamental to protecting the decisionally vulnerable as per Sopinka, McLachlin and Cory in Rodriguez, and the McLachlin court in Carter.

    Every single indication from the Supreme Court of Canada says that we cannot have end-of-life assisted dying, assisted suicide, euthanasia or whatever words someone uses, that section 7 charter right cannot be accessed without a very carefully crafted and scrupulously governed system of safeguards. This includes a 10-day review period to make sure somebody was not at their lowest point and then the state moves in, and two witnesses to make sure that there is not someone vulnerable being forced or coerced into it. These are very reasonable amendments that not just Conservative MPs are asking for, but Canadians are asking for.

    We are adopting a reasonable approach by proposing amendments to the bill on medical assistance in dying. It is a critical issue for our society and that is why we, the official opposition, are here to defend the most vulnerable members of our society. That is why we already proposed reasonable amendments for seniors, people with disabilities and Canadians with mental health problems.

    This is a very important debate for the well-being of Canadians across the country. That is why I am proud of my caucus, whose approach to Bill C-7 is very compassionate and defends the most vulnerable members of our society.

    It is up to the government. Today, it might be asking for a delay from the court, which is something it should have done months ago. It should have appealed the decision or not prorogued Parliament. Even with the fact that we feel there is a deadline, we should not lose sight of who we are safeguarding.

    When we come to the bar and bow to you, Madam Speaker, that is because Parliament is a court. It is the highest court and we have a dialogue with the Supreme Court on decisions related to the charter. Parliament is supreme. When the government suggests we are being unreasonable because we want to keep with the spirit of the Carter decision, this court should be respected that as well. I have not seen this from the government yet.

    If the government just reviewed the Carter and Rodriguez decisions and provided those safeguards, held up the dignity required under section 7 of the charter, we could ensure that the right guaranteed in Carter would be respected with a rigorous and scrupulous approach to protecting the decisionally vulnerable and most vulnerable in our society. The Conservatives are here to provide those reasonable amendments for the well-being of our country.

     I appreciate the opportunity today to allow Canadians to realize that it is not the Conservative Party holding up legislation or not respecting a court. This is the Conservative Party asking for the will of the Supreme Court, through these two decisions, for our most vulnerable in society to be protected.

    Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the leader of the official opposition, for his speech.

    We are accountable to Quebeckers and Canadians, as well as to the Quebec Superior Court.

    I would like to know how the leader of the official opposition can believe it is appropriate to disregard a decision from the Quebec Superior Court.

    Madam Speaker, what is appropriate is to protect the most vulnerable in our society. That was actually the essence of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in both Rodriguez and Carter.

    Unfortunately, that was not the Liberal government's approach. Now here we are, with the deadline fast approaching, because of prorogation. We are here because of the government's inaction. That is why we are proposing reasonable amendments. That is why we will continue to protect the most vulnerable, including seniors at the Herron long-term care centre, for example, who are very isolated.

    We are here for Canadians, people with disabilities and seniors. That is why the amendments, the safeguards, are so important.

    Madam Speaker, I want to make a correction. The hon. member spoke a lot about mental health, but the bill explicitly states, in paragraph (2.1), “For the purposes of paragraph (2)?(a), a mental illness is not considered to be an illness, disease or disability.” Then, if we go “Safeguards”, paragraph (3.1), one of the criteria is “that the person meets all of the criteria set out in subsection (1)”. I say that because this is a critical debate in the House and we are responsible for providing the Canadian public with accurate information.

    He spoke a lot about dignity. I know, from the advocates I have worked with in the disability community, that one of the things they are fighting for is a guaranteed liveable basic income so they can live in dignity. Does the member opposite support implementing a guaranteed liveable basic income as has been requested from the disability community?

    Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for raising what she perceives is a carve-out for mental health. The challenge is this. Mental health can be approached with a psychiatry handbook and a recognized condition. Mental health can also be someone who is in depression in a grievous harmful situation, isolated in a pandemic, a senior who feels her or she is a burden on his or her family. That is why, going back to the Rodriguez and Carter decisions, which I would invite all members to read, including the Attorney General, consent and capacity and 10-day review is to ensure there is no state-of-mind issue for someone is feeling coerced or vulnerable.

     Mental health is a part of the end-of-life decision, the stress and pain, all those considerations. That is why the Carter decision said that a carefully designed system of safeguards was critical. The government does not have that. We are asking for reasonable safeguards to protect our most vulnerable.

    Madam Speaker, I appreciate the contributions of the Leader of the Opposition. I would put out that safeguards have in fact been increased in the legislation, particularly in track two with respect to the 90-day requirement for an assessment and the expertise being required as part of that assessment panel.

    When we consider why track two is appropriate, the member opposite went to great lengths to cite extensive jurisprudence. The jurisprudence in the Truchon decision indicated that not making medical assistance in dying available to persons who were not at the end of life, including persons with disability, like Madam Gladu and Monsieur Truchon, was itself unconstitutional.

    Given that we have dealt with extensive consultations, given that Canadians are needlessly suffering and given that we have straightforward legislation before us, will the member opposite use his leadership with respect to his caucus to ensure we can have a vote on the legislation to address, and no longer prolong, the needless suffering of Canadians?

    Madam Speaker, when the government removed the irremediable, it changed this from an assisted dying regime into an assisted suicide regime. The hon. parliamentary secretary is recognizing that in his own comments.

     The government is removing some of the safeguards. It is making it easier to access, making more decisionally vulnerable people vulnerable and removing two of the safeguards in the process. It actually flies directly in the face of Rodriguez and Carter's clarity on dignity and on the decisionally vulnerable.

    I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to use his leadership. Our amendments really just ask the government to stop eroding protections. The government is running roughshod over what the court has said. When it takes out that approaching reasonably foreseeable death, that is gone. That should concern Canadians, particularly as we have seen the isolation in this pandemic for some of our seniors, that fear. They are the decisionally vulnerable. That is who the courts have been asking us to look after.

    I would like the hon. parliamentary secretary to use his leadership, perhaps dropping a copy of those judgments off with the Attorney General. The former attorney general, who passed the regime following the Carter decision, a former Liberal until she was pushed by the Prime Minister, has concerns with the approach as do disability groups, a lot of indigenous leaders, mental health physicians and the opposition. All we are asking for is a few reasonable safeguards. It is up to the hon. parliamentary secretary to put down the talking points.

    When the Liberals decided to prorogue, they put the time pressure on. We will continue to stand up for our most vulnerable.

    Mr. Speaker, we have heard the Leader of the Opposition outline how the bill shifts toward an assisted suicide regime. Then we heard the parliamentary secretary talk about Canadians who were needlessly suffering. I am concerned about the intersection of those two points without the state looking at doing everything possible to preserve the ability of Canadians to live with dignity.

    Could the Leader of the Opposition talk about the need for the government to move on issues like support for persons with disability, housing, palliative care and the atrocities we see in long-term centres across the country right now? Could the Leader of the Opposition talk about how it is not just about this legislation, but that there needs to be a framework in which people are not needlessly suffering because they see hope and a choice through other services and programs?

    Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill for her advocacy for some of the folks we are talking about.

    As was said by some legal scholars, by Prof. Grant, UBC and others, when we do not even have efficient palliative, end of life, care, when we have some challenges with long-term care, those holes and gaps have been exposed through the pressures of COVID, when we know there are rising mental health issues, there is trauma experienced by those who have suffered childhood abuse and other things, when our society is scrambling to get supports for the vulnerable to address those issues, but on the other hand is actually eroding safeguards to keep those people out of a state-run system with respect to end of life, we are failing our citizens.

    Our approach here is to ensure that the vulnerable are protected. As I said to the former Liberal attorney general, who brought in the post-Carter regime, I was becoming comfortable with the other regime, knowing that safeguards were there and that it was to be an irremediable, reasonably, foreseeable end of life. The government is fundamentally changing this and taking out the safeguards at a time when we know there are more vulnerable as a result of the pandemic.

    It is reckless public policy on the most important debate our Parliament will have. That is why I hope the government will see the light. With a few reasonable amendments, I think a lot of Canadians will be protected.

    Madam Speaker, I am very grateful for the opportunity to put a few words on the record concerning Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code, medical assistance in dying, which I will refer to as MAID throughout my remarks.

    The bill from the Liberal government would amend the original MAID legislation that achieved royal assent only four and a half years ago. The new bill was initiated in response to the Truchon case, where a federal court in Quebec struck down the clause in the original legislation that said MAID could only be applied if natural death was reasonably foreseeable. The Quebec Superior Court judge ruled on September 11, 2019, just over a year ago, that this clause violated section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person, making this clause of the original legislation unconstitutional.

    The court's ruling will come into effect on December 18 of this year. The Conservatives have held firm to the position that this ruling by the Quebec Superior Court should have been appealed by the federal government to the Supreme Court of Canada. Given that it is a ruling that affects life and death, I sincerely agree with our position.

    Had the Liberal government appealed, it would have given Canadians significantly more time to discuss this very critical issue, and had the Liberal government not prorogued Parliament for six weeks in August and September, Parliament would have had more time to study and debate the bill. However, this position was resoundingly ignored by the Liberal government. Now we are voting on a radical expansion of MAID, and I have many concerns and will not be supporting the bill.

    I do understand the desire for legalizing MAID in Canada. I witnessed my grandmother suffer terribly at the end of her life. MAID was not made available to her and, frankly, I do not know if she would have chosen it. She was a very strong and resilient woman, with a gift of the gab and an incredible ability to write, which I have inherited those gifts. That is why I am able to be here today as a member of Parliament, which she would have been so proud to see. She had these abilities despite not even having a grade eight education. She would have achieved amazing things had she not been born into a very poor family in rural Manitoba.

    She tragically suffered a stroke and after that she could not speak or write, her favourite things. Then her diabetes wreaked havoc on her body and her leg had to be amputated as a result. A short while later, the doctors told us that they would have to amputate her other leg. It was really horrible and the worst thing in my life to see her go through this. I wonder if MAID would have been a kinder option for her. For that reason I understand and deeply appreciate why MAID was legalized in Canada.

    However, the Conservatives have flagged a number of critical issues with this new expansion of MAID and we worked hard to bring forward amendments to ensure safeguards remained in place for Canada's most vulnerable people. Unfortunately, the Liberals voted against every one of our proposed amendments, and I really do not understand why. We presented many strong, sound arguments from stakeholders across the country, most of whom had no partisan connection whatsoever to the Conservative Party. In fact, this is not a partisan issue and yet it is being treated like one by the Liberal government, which I find deeply upsetting.

    When I was researching the bill to determine my position, I was startled to discover that over 1,000 physicians had written to the Attorney General in opposition to the bill. I would like to read into the record some of what their letter said because I found it extremely compelling. They said:

    They went on to say:

    Finally, they went on to say:

    The comments tie in very well with what we have heard from the disability community at the justice committee and the like when we were studying this legislation. In fact, 72 national disability advocacy groups have opposed this legislation. I personally fielded many calls from my constituents, who were the first to tell me that they usually vote NDP, yet they felt very compelled to reach out to me to express their fear of what this bill meant to them.

    There is a genuine terror in the disability community of this bill, which I have heard first-hand, yet those fears are being completely discounted by the Liberal government. I really do not understand why.

    More than that, the Liberals are even ignoring the United Nations with this legislation. A UN special rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities responded to the expansion of MAID with clear dismay. She said:

    That is a pretty powerful quote, in my opinion.

    We know that there are considerable issues with palliative care. We know that 70% of Canadians, seven out of 10, do not have access to palliative end-of-life care in Canada. I find that to be a shocking number, and I had no idea until I did research for this bill.

    I do believe that without access to good quality palliative care, we have failed to offer Canadians a real choice. If they cannot peacefully live out their final moments with safe, reliable care that is supportive and catered to their needs, then I can understand why MAID would be so appealing.

     More than that, the COVID-19 pandemic has really lifted the veil on the terrible state of elderly care in Canada. In Winnipeg, our residents in elderly care homes have suffered tremendously. While we have many care homes that are doing phenomenal, outstanding work, others, not so much. A few weeks ago, Manitobans were horrified at revelations of an elderly care home just outside of my riding that was understaffed, and overwhelmed by COVID-19 cases.

    When paramedics arrived, they found that some residents had been dead for hours and no one knew. Others were severely dehydrated and starving to death. If we are to provide dignity in dying, we must also ensure dignity in living. This is paramount to the discussion and has been completely ignored by the Liberal government. In fact, in the Liberals' 2015 election platform, they promised billions of dollars for palliative care. This was never delivered.

     Further to that, I found it alarming that the 10-day reflection period in the original MAID legislation would be eliminated with the passage of this bill. It is important to note that the existing MAID legislation allows the 10-day reflection period to be waived under special circumstances, so flexibility on this 10-day reflection period is already in the existing MAID framework.

     I am really not married to the 10 days specifically. It could be a bit shorter, or it could be a bit longer. I would need to hear from professionals in psychology to truly understand how many days are best to ensure end-of-life decisions are not made emotionally, or made in the heat of the moment, so to speak. However, I do firmly believe, at the very least, someone who requests MAID should have to sleep on it, given that there is no going back from it.

    Given there are tough days, whether someone had a poor interaction with a health care worker or does not like their new room or facility, or their family has not visited in a while, or it has just been a physically or emotionally tough and painful day, there are so many reasons why someone within their most vulnerable state should have safeguards in place when making life-ending, “game over” decisions. With this legislation, if it is passed, MAID could be administered only hours later.

    What really solidified my thoughts on the removal of this safeguard was the former Liberal minister of justice, the member for Vancouver Granville, who was responsible for the original MAID legislation only four and a half years ago. She questioned the current justice minister on removing the reflection period, given removing this safeguard was not called for in the Truchon decision. The person who brought forward this legislation four and a half years ago is asking why the Liberals are removing this reflection period, yet we received no firm answer from the Liberal government as to why that is. I find that to be pretty compelling. The Liberals, for reasons unknown, went far beyond what was required in the Truchon case when they created Bill C-7, and I believe these concerns are valid.

     In fact, we learned in the “First Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada, 2019”, that 3.6% of patients who made written requests for MAID subsequently withdrew those requests. Now, 3.6% may not sound like a lot, but of the 7,336 people who applied for MAID, 263 of them changed their minds.

    We should keep in mind that MAID is new in Canada and not easily accessible everywhere. Members can imagine how many people will be applying for this after Bill C-7 passes. As MAID becomes increasingly normalized, we know that 263 lives were allowed to continue to live on because of that reflection period, which is, in my opinion, so important to maintain. However, it will not exist moving forward because of the Liberal government's refusal to listen.

    Conservatives also proposed an amendment that would extend the new 90-day reflection period for those seeking MAID whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. We proposed to extend it to 120 days, and the arguments for this are solid. The over 1,000 doctors who I quoted earlier have said, “We live in a country where the wait time to see a psychiatrist in certain areas is 4-8 times longer than the 90-day waiting period proposed in the bill for those whose natural death is not considered 'reasonably foreseeable'”.

    Further, we know that after a catastrophic accident causing, for example, a life-altering injury, suicidal ideation is very common, but with the proper support it goes away and a happy and purposeful life can resume. Moreover, it takes much longer in many cases to get a wheelchair or quality specialized rehabilitation care than the 90 days, so I ask this: What good is 90 days if someone is not able to access alternatives in that time period? I do not know.

    Additionally, Conservatives believe we can better protect vulnerable patients by requiring the patients to be the ones who first request information on medical assistance in dying, and not have it openly or flippantly offered to a patient as a standard everyday option like pain medication or various therapies. Conservatives believe MAID is an extremely serious matter and should not be something pushed on patients in their most vulnerable state.

    Whenever members on this side of the House state the potential for pressure to be put on patients concerning MAID, I do find, during these debates, that Liberal members essentially roll their eyes. They scoff and say that never happens, while the justice committee heard something different. It heard first-hand from witness accounts that pressure does, in fact, happen and has been happening over the past four and a half years.

    Roger Foley is an infamous example of this pressure. He was offered MAID on four separate occasions to date and never once indicated that he was interested. In fact, he indicated quite the opposite. When he was having a bad day it was offered to him. It was almost as if they were tempting him by saying there is an easier way and suggesting he should just end it all. I just find that terrifying.

    I find Roger's case very alarming. Safeguards must be put in place to ensure that when people are at their weakest and most vulnerable moments, they are not offered something that would end their lives forever, but rather are provided various options for better care and support, if they want it.

    Another issue I have with this bill is that it moves to expand MAID so quickly. Really, this MAID legislation's original framework was just legalized four and a half years ago, which is really a blink of an eye in relative terms. The original legislation was thoroughly researched and vetted, and numerous safeguards were put in place to ensure our most vulnerable were protected. Those safeguards were considered critical at the time.

    Now, less than five years later, the Liberal government is massively expanding MAID and doing away with many of those safeguards it itself deemed critical in the first legislation not even five years ago. At this pace, I very much believe and fear that we may be debating expanding MAID for children or those with mental health issues within my lifetime, and I find that absolutely terrifying.

    More than that, this legislation comes before the mandatory five-year review. I feel that without that we are flying blind without the proper data that could have been revealed in a comprehensive review. There are simple questions I would have hoped would have been assessed in that review, such as these: “Who is taking MAID?”; “Is it mostly the elderly or the poor?”; “Is it racialized communities or wealthier white people?”; “Is MAID affecting certain demographics?”; “Why those demographics?”; “Are there reoccurring themes for choosing MAID that could be addressed by providing better care during suffering at end of life, rather than death?”.

    We should be doing everything we can as legislators to provide alternatives to MAID that are reliable and easily accessible to everyone, yet the current government is not doing that at all.

    What I find interesting on this is that the current Liberal justice minister is responsible for this aggressive expansion of MAID. He, in fact, voted against his own government's Liberal legislation on MAID, the original one four and a half years ago, because he believed it did not go far enough. We have known for a long time what his position is, and that leads me to question whether the Liberal consultations on this bill were really impartial. It may explain why this legislation goes far beyond what the Quebec superior court judge called for in the Truchon ruling.

    There are so many questions with this new freedom Canadians have with MAID. I firmly believe we have the responsibility as legislators to proceed on ending the lives of Canadians with extreme caution. There is a profound shift happening in our society concerning MAID, and we must proceed thoughtfully and with thorough, exhaustive research, which has not happened with this expansion of MAID. For me, this expansion, to put it plainly, is too much, too fast, too soon.

    Bill C-7 would remove other critical safeguards as well, such as the requirement to have two independent witnesses sign off on MAID for a patient. This safeguard helps to prevent abuse and coercion of MAID and provided much-needed oversight on those discussions with patients. To think a person needs two independent witnesses to sign off on a will, but not to end their actual life, makes me feel as though we are living in the twilight zone.

    Further, Conservatives have advocated for amendments that would ensure physicians who sign off on MAID applications have expertise in a patient's condition. One would think that for a life-ending decision such as MAID, the safeguard would be a given, but no, the Liberals disagree, and again for reasons largely unknown.

    Additionally, a number of constituents have reached out to me with significant concerns that health care professionals who do not agree with the morality of MAID would be forced to help administer it. The Liberals have insisted that this will not be the case and that the conscience rights of health care professionals will be protected. However, communication on that has been dismal, to say the least, otherwise I would not be receiving so many calls about it. I urge the Liberal government to invest more time and energy into communicating on this specific issue.

    I will end with a quote from the over 1,000 doctors who I have mentioned throughout my remarks. They said:

    Madam Speaker, I myself am a strong advocate for palliative care. I was a founding member of the all-party Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care, and I have the largest palliative care hospice in the country in my riding, the Teresa Dellar Palliative Care Residence.

    The member mentioned that the Minister of Justice voted against the original bill, but the reason he did so was because he knew from the start that it was unconstitutional precisely because he did understand the jurisprudence. This makes me think that the Leader of the Opposition was being rather glib when he suggested that the Minister of Justice did not understand the jurisprudence.

    The member mentioned that people should be allowed to sleep on it, but prior to the 10-day waiting period, there is an assessment period when people are obviously reflecting on the matter. I just do not understand how the member feels that, by taking away the 10-day waiting period, people are not being given the chance to sleep on it.

    Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member has phenomenal palliative care in his riding. I wish the rest of the members of Parliament in the House could say the same. Had the member's Liberal government delivered on its 2105 promise to invest billions in palliative care, that may be the case in more ridings than his own.

    To his question concerning the 10-day reflection period, I still believe it is very important that when the final decision is made, people still have to sleep on it.

    Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for articulating so well the risks to Canadians that this legislation represents.

    I want to reference palliative care that the member's speech also referenced. She is correct that in 2015 the Liberal government announced it was going to deliver support for palliative care, which it never did. In 2017, it reannounced that, and it never delivered. In 2019, it never delivered. More recently it announced somewhere in the order of $6 billion over 10 years across the whole country. It is a drop in the bucket to try to improve palliative care across the country.

    I would ask the member to comment on the state of palliative and perhaps reference her grandmother again. She made a poignant reference earlier about her grandmother's end-of-life care and how palliative care played into that situation. I would ask her how it could be improved going forward.

    Madam Speaker, there are many palliative care facilities in my riding that are absolutely phenomenal and doing incredible work, particularly during this pandemic. As I remarked in my speech, there are a number of other care homes for the elderly in Winnipeg that are not doing so well. As I mentioned, at one point the situation was so dire, with so many COVID cases and such a staff shortage, that paramedics were called and when they arrived they were completely dumbfounded by what they found. There were numerous people who had been dead for hours and no one knew they had died. People were starving: “starving to death” was how they described it.

    My grandmother had decent palliative care, I have to say, but I found that more could have been done to perhaps support her in her final days. Looking back, I would change so much. I think we all say that and think that about our grandparents and parents when they pass on, but I find this a very important discussion. If we are going to expand MAID, we have to expand palliative care.

    Madam Speaker, I have been here for five years listening to a great deal of debate on this very important issue. All lives are of equal value. I genuinely believe that. We need to emphasize how important personal care, home care and palliative care all are. I have enjoyed those discussions. Money has been flowing in that area.

    Will the Conservative Party be transparent and honest with Canadians by stating the real reason why it is not prepared to see this bill go forward?

    It does not support the legislation and it would rather have it appealed to a superior court. If it was in government, it would not be passing this legislation at this point because it would have referred it to a superior court.

    Madam Speaker, the member opposite is correct. We would have appealed it to the Supreme Court. When we are talking about life and death, something of this magnitude that is going to be this much of a change for society should absolutely go to the highest court in the land. End of story.

    Madam Speaker, I know this issue engages the most profound issues of conscience. It requires great care as legislators.

    I remember when the Carter decision came out. I am a lawyer by training. I read it carefully, and I was concerned that the government put in a requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable, because that was not called for in the Carter decision. Of course, that led the plaintiffs in the Truchon decision, Nicole Gladu and Jean Truchon, to appeal.

     It is worth mentioning why they did so. Ms. Gladu was 74. She used a wheelchair. She had post-polio syndrome: a condition that weakened her muscles and reactivated her childhood scoliosis. She had difficulty breathing and was in constant pain. Mr. Truchon was born with cerebral palsy. He no longer had the use of his limbs. In 2012, he lost the use of his only working limb, his left arm, due to severe spinal stenosis, which left him almost completely paralyzed and caused painful spasms. He had given up most of his activities and gone into assisted living since there was little left that he could do by himself. Each of those people had been refused MAID under the Quebec legislation regarding end-of-life care, and they did not meet the requirements of the federal legislation because the ends of their lives were not reasonably foreseeable.

    Does my hon. colleague agree with the Truchon decision, insofar as it has found the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable to be a violation of Canadians' constitutional rights?

    Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's thoughtful comments. I would have loved to hear what the Supreme Court would have said about the Truchon decision. That would have given me more confidence in that decision, but ultimately, removing the term “reasonably foreseeable” gives me some fear. I was very frank about that in my speech.

     I wonder very much whether, in my lifetime, we are going to see this expanded to children who do not have reasonably foreseeable deaths, or to those suffering from mental illness. Concerning mental illness, I know the government has been very clear that this legislation excludes it, but at the rapid pace we are expanding it I am not convinced that we are not going to see this extend to mental illness within my lifetime. I find that to be the most terrifying aspect of this new legislation.

    Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the question from the parliamentary secretary about the difference between the assessment period and the reflection period. I know members of the government have said it could not happen on the same day because there is an assessment period before the reflection period. However, there is no timing set on the assessment period. There is no reason that the assessment period could not happen very quickly. We are still left with a situation in which all of this could happen all at once. There are no time parameters on the assessment period. The government could have, if it wanted to, proposed time parameters around the assessment period, which it did not do.

    Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's question.

     I would refer to the quotes that I included in my remarks from the more than 1,000 doctors who wrote in response to this issue and said that it was a real concern to them. I would agree.

    Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could speak about the issue of contemporaneous consent and the fact that the legislation would not even require people to be asked on the day they are receiving MAID. We had a Conservative amendment that would have at least required people to be asked on the day. Is that not the minimum of what would be reasonable?

    Madam Speaker, I have concerns with not having to sign off right before. I recognize, and I have heard many stories of, why that was removed. One could give prior consent and then have MAID administered when one has essentially lost the ability to give consent. However, I have concerns on that. Again, this is one of those issues that, had we more time, had this Liberal government not prorogued Parliament, we could have studied it in further detail.

    Madam Speaker, we are now at the third reading stage of C-7. This means all the amendments that will be considered by the House have now been considered, and we must now pronounce on the final version of the bill and its effects.

    Before I speak about this bill in final form, I want to respond directly to what I see as the government's principal argument for this legislation and other similar legislation. It tells us this is all about choice: the choice of individuals to live as they choose and die as they choose. The idea is that moral judgments about good living and good dying ought to be made by the person doing the living and dying, as opposed to by someone else, because the individual is uniquely qualified to make judgments about their own happiness and someone outside their skin simply cannot make those judgments as well.

    This is the one serious argument people use to advance this bill and others like it. We should of course appreciate the existence of other unserious arguments, such as the assertion that, “The courts told us to,” or, “This is what people we have consulted told us to do.”

    A small part of this bill responds to a lower court decision, but most of it has been invented, out of thin air, by the government and whoever it consulted or did not consult. Over a thousand physicians have signed a letter opposing this bill, and every single disability rights organization that has spoken out about this bill has spoken in opposition to it. These are unserious arguments stemming from unserious readings of court decisions and unserious consultation.

    The serious argument made in support of this bill, as I have stated, is that people ought to have the choice to make decisions about their living and dying because they know what will lead to their happiness better than anyone else. This is the argument, but we should also notice how those who use this argument ultimately choose to apply it selectively. Even while suggesting it is all about choice, they insist on changing the words we use to describe the choice in order to make us feel better about it.

    The phrase “medical assistance in dying” was invented at the time Bill C-14 was proposed, and is not a phrase used in other countries to describe the phenomenon of doctors killing their patients. If this is really about choice, why do we have to invent new pseudo-terms to make ourselves feel better about that choice?

    If I asked members point-blank whether they think a person should be able to commit suicide, I am sure many would respond that this is not suicide. It is completely different, as it is medical assistance in dying. Formally, what is meant by medical assistance in dying is facilitated suicide, or killing in a medical context. We claim to be focused on choice, but we still are uncomfortable enough with the choice that we have to invent new words to describe it.

    Some members do not like the use of the word “euthanasia” to describe the phenomenon of doctors and nurses killing their patients after being asked to do so. The Minister of Health told the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that phrases “referring to this bill as 'euthanasia' legislation, which I have heard in the House of Commons, are incredibly demeaning to the dignity of people”.

    The health minister may be interested to know the word euthanasia actually comes from two Greek words: “eu”, meaning well, and “thanatos”, meaning death. The term euthanasia means “good death”, and is itself a sanitization of the concept of killing. If the term is misleading, it is not because it is too harsh but because it is too gentle. As we have heard, not all cases of assisted suicide can reasonably be called good deaths by any definition.

    Notice that the word euthanasia is never used to describe the administration of the death penalty. The term was invented in order to sanitize the idea of the medicalized killing of a consenting person. It is instructive that a sanitized term for this practice, once people had a full social awareness of its meaning and reality, had to be replaced by a new sanitized term to further obscure the true nature of what is taking place.

    No doubt, in 20 or 30 years, the term MAID will be thought gauche and replaced with another, more up-to-date sanitization of a term that no longer makes us feel better about something we naturally feel uncomfortable about. The point is that if this all about choice, and if we are comfortable with this choice, why are we not comfortable speaking plainly about sick people committing suicide and about doctors killing their patients when asked to do so? Would that not be a more plain and accurate description of the choice that many wish to defend?

    If there is a practice or activity that people are uncomfortable seeing depicted or hearing described accurately, perhaps we should ask ourselves why we feel uncomfortable instead of demanding that the images and descriptions be put aside.

    Members should observe as well that the idea of a choice to die, or a right to die, is being advocated for selectively. Some people have a right to die and some people do not, apparently, so we have to ask why this principle is being selectively applied.

    Suppose that I, an able-bodied healthy white man, experienced some great personal tragedy such as the death of a child or the breakup of my marriage. It is possible that following such an event I might start to experience extreme existential pain and suicidal ideation. If I then went to a doctor to share the feelings I was experiencing, I would not be presented with MAID as a way out of the challenges I was facing. The way I look, my health status and other characteristics I have would signal to the doctor that my life was worth living. We know it to be true that when a young, able-bodied person chooses to die, those around them will say, “What a tragedy. He had so much to live for.”

    The argument for a choice to die does not apply to those who society believes should not choose to die, even if such people are sincere in their expression of pain, in their sense that their pain is irremediable and in their desire not to continue living, but what if a person who is older, who is disabled, who does not fit the stereotypical social mould of someone who has a lot to live for, presents themself to the health care system experiencing existential pain and suicidal ideation?

    We know from testimony from the justice committee that people in this situation are offered and even pressured to opt for MAID. People who are elderly or living with disabilities are often offered and pushed to take MAID without asking for it. This is the testimony given over and over again at the justice committee and confirmed by the minister responsible for disability inclusion, who acknowledged how concerned she is about people with disabilities being regularly and proactively offered MAID that they do not want.

    We see here an important and revealing contradiction in the application of the principle of choice. For some in society, death is seen as an unreasonable choice and is actively discouraged. For others, death is seen as a desirable choice and is actively encouraged. This is not just a debate about choice, therefore. Rather, it is a debate about how the architecture of choice is set up differently for different people, based on whether others assess their lives as being worth living.

    This is what leaders in the disability community are deeply concerned about: how this legislation includes them and only them in the additional category of those for whom we think death is a reasonable course of action.

    Suppose that of my four children one had a disability and suppose that I taught three of my children to always press on because life is beautiful, but I told the fourth child that they should consider death if they ever faced circumstance that they could not handle. Do colleagues think that situation would make my fourth child feel privileged by the special offer of choice or do colleagues think she would feel devalued by the fact that I thought death was uniquely an option for her, based on the presumption that her life was not worth living?

    Choices do not exist in a social vacuum. When we speak about choice, we recognize that people are making choices between available options and the nature of those available options is constructed by the society in which they live.

    I used to think that people were always better off with more options, that just like a menu at a restaurant, we are always better off with more options available to us: the longer the menu, the better. If I do not like any of the new options available, then no problem. I do not have to choose them, but I should not begrudge other people the opportunity to have more choices available to them, even if I do not like those choices. Nobody is made worse off by the lengthening of the menu. Then I realized that it was not that simple. If I am in a restaurant and the only options available are chicken or beef then, arguably, yes, I am better off with the addition of more items on the menu; a fish option, a vegetarian dish, etc., but there is also a case in which the existence of certain options on the menu fundamentally changes the nature of the experience.

     Suppose that while travelling, I encounter a restaurant that offers a human flesh sandwich in addition to the usual fare. It is fairly safe that I would not stay and order in that restaurant even if I had no intention of ordering the human flesh sandwich. It is unlikely that any members of this House would feel comfortable eating in such a restaurant, even if all they planned to eat was the filet mignon. That example illustrates the way that the offer of an additional option can actually change one's entire experience of a place or environment. A person with a disability who is offered death has a very different experience of health care from a person who is consistently offered life-affirming care.

    The fact that people are offered or encouraged toward certain choices, and that some people are offered those choices and others are not, changes the entire experience of health care for many people. Part of the response to this brave new world of so-called medical assistance in dying is that people are seeking safe spaces where they can receive care that is life-affirming. There are still many people in this country who have about as much interest in receiving care in an environment where death is being offered as they do in eating at a restaurant where cannibalism is offered. Such people should be free to receive care in a hospice where life is the only choice and where they feel safe from the possibility of pressure of a momentary weakness or from the sense that they are an unnecessary burden. Some are still looking for care that is animated by the conviction that all lives are always worth living, but perversely, those who claim to champion choice are actually attacking these safe spaces. With the absence of conscience protection in this or any other legislation like it, doctors are being forced out of their profession and life-affirming hospice care is being shut down.

    We wonder why we have a crisis in long-term care in this country. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that so many of the people in organizations that have historically operated in this space are being pushed out because of a lack of conscience protection. Protecting the conscience rights of physicians and institutions is not just about the rights of providers. It is about the right, indeed the choice, of patients to receive care in a certain kind of environment if that is their desire.

    I know from the many conversations that I have had with constituents, including those who are very supportive of the expansion of MAID, that the present realities of the social architecture of choice are top of mind for them during their advocacy. In other words, they want more euthanasia because they find the alternative intolerable. An absence of good care, an absence of effective pain management, an absence of support to live in a way that accords with their sense of dignity and a sense of resignation about these realities leaves them to want to be able to end it all, rather than endure under undesirable conditions, but those conditions could themselves be changed. The expansion of euthanasia, along with continuing pressure on all health care institutions to offer it, will further erode the life-affirming nature of care that people receive.

    I remember once having a long conversation with a constituent who explained to me her reasons for advocating for expanded euthanasia. She emphasized the classic arguments about choice and control, and then shared with me a story of being in a care situation and struggling to have a bowel movement unaided. She went to the nursing station for help, and unfortunately was met with a gruff and unempathetic response. Her memory of the sense of indignity she felt, struggling for a long time on her own, and then seeking the help of a person who seemed uncaring and disgusted, was clearly a part of her thought process about the circumstances under which she would want to die.

    While I can identify with her feelings in the moment, I think the solution is to give people the choice of compassionate care. It is a tragedy that people are considering death because of moments of perceived indignity that can be quite directly resolved.

    Many older people who are considering death say that they do not want to be a burden on others. This is expressed as a matter of choice, but it is also revealing about the architecture of choice. It is generally unheard of for children to insist on paying rent to their parents or living independently because they do not want to be a burden. Certainly, I have never heard such sentiments from my children.

    Why are elderly people made to feel like they might be a burden, while children are not? Again, this is an issue of social context. If children were constantly told from a young age that they were a great burden to their parents, that they were costing them money that could be spent on other things, and that they were interrupting their social lives, then children would likely start to worry about being a burden.

    Conversely, if seniors and people with disabilities were constantly affirmed for their value and their ability to contribute to society, constantly told that they hold the key to our future rather than constantly being told about the burden they impose, then of course they would be more likely to choose life instead of death.

    This is not just a question of choice. It is a question of the social architecture of choice that leads people to make different choices in different kinds of situations based on the limited options in front of them and based on the way that different options impact each other.

    To underline this with one further point, it should not escape the notice of members that the government's Bill C-6, the proposed ban on conversion therapy, is built on the premise that people cannot consent to something that is contrary to their human dignity. Although I have concerns about the text of Bill C-6 as written, I agree with the principle that conversion therapy is wrong and should not be allowed.

    In light of both Bill C-6 and Bill C-7, it remains unclear to me what the government's view is on the ability of a person to consent to harm. Is it the view of the government that people should be able to voluntarily consent to things that harm them? Looking at these bills together, we might conclude the government finds it okay for people to consent to death but not okay for people to consent to certain things that are deemed worse than death. However, this subjective categorization of certain harms as being worse than others clearly may contradict an individual's own subjective sense of what things are more harmful than others.

    It is time for us, as parliamentarians, to talk about the choices that elderly people and people living with disabilities have in front of them, and to give them options besides death, to move from a narrow focus on questions of choice to a discussion of the architecture of choice that puts people in impossible and painful situations. A good society is not just one that gives people the formal right to make choices between different alternatives. It is one that ensures that those alternatives are sufficiently robust so that individuals are able to make choices that truly lead to happiness. Of course not all choices lead to happiness.

     People can make choices that they think will lead to happiness, but do not. This is especially serious when a decision is final and irreversible. The wider community has a reasonable interest in ensuring that a person making that choice has at least all of the information in front of them, taking into consideration the fact that people can and often do adapt to new circumstances over time. A belief in the pursuit of happiness entails a belief in freedom but also a belief in the value of encouraging the considered use of freedom through due reflection.

     Having reflected on the application of the concept of choice in this context, I would now like to make a few additional comments about the provisions of this bill and the timing of it. This bill proposes to eliminate the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable for those seeking euthanasia and puts those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable on a second track with some distinct requirements. The reconsideration of the question of reasonable foreseeability was provoked by a court decision in Quebec, the Truchon decision, which the government could have chosen to appeal but did not.

    This bill deals with more than this question. It also arbitrarily eliminates a number of safeguards that have nothing to do with the Truchon decision. It eliminates the 10-day reflection period. It reduces the required number of witnesses. It eliminates the requirement for contemporaneous consent. The removal of the 10-day reflection period in particular has led experts to point out that this opens the door to same-day death, to a situation where a patient could request and receive euthanasia on the same day.

    Some members of this House have strenuously objected to the use of this term. Same-day death is a jarring idea that someone's worst day could be their last, and that temporary suicidal ideation could lead to immediate death. However, those who find this term uncomfortable must face up to the fact that the legislation as written contains no parameters for those for whom death is deemed reasonably foreseeable.

    If members believe that time parameters exist, then they should point to where they exist in law. If members believe that time parameters should exist, then they should have supported their reintroduction into the bill. As the law stands before us now, there are no legislated requirements around timelines for those for whom death is reasonably foreseeable.

    At third reading, members must choose whether or not they will vote for same-day death in Canada. As Wilberforce said:

    The Conservatives have proposed reasonable amendments to reintroduce the reflection period, introduce a shorter reflection period and reintroduce requirements around contemporaneous consent and independent witnesses, in particular, recognizing the different experiences people with disabilities have reported with respect to the health care system. We also introduced a requirement that health care practitioners only discuss euthanasia if it is brought up by the patient first. These safeguards matter and would protect vulnerable people by reducing their risk of being rushed and pressured into vulnerable situations.

    In response to our call for safeguards, the government said it trusts health care practitioners and these rules are not required. The purpose of a safeguard is not to respond to what may be the average case, but to establish a minimum standard. We are talking about 100,000 people in this country whose professional qualifications would allow them to administer euthanasia. Are those 100,000 so uniquely virtuous or trustworthy they do not need laws to regulate their behaviour while the rest of us do? I believe most people in medicine are doing their best to selflessly serve others, but one needs only listen to the testimony at the justice committee to realize some of those who are providing health care have fallen short of that call. All of us need laws to regulate our behaviour to some extent. If we need regulations, then how can we expect those 100,000 people to be different? Are there no bad apples? I am not arguing they should be subject to unique suspicion, but that they simply need rules and laws to guide their actions like the rest of us do. People charged with taking another person's life should do so within strictly defined parameters for their own good and that of everyone else. I trust doctors just as I trust police officers, but they still need regulations and oversight. We recognize there are some bad apples on our police forces and if we need safeguards for police officers in light of their power to take life, then we also need safeguards for those in power to take life in a medical context.

    The government has been working very hard to push the narrative about timing, claiming the Conservatives are responsible for delaying this bill. It should stand to reason that if the government wants us to invest in rapidly passing its bill, it must proceed to persuade us that it is a good bill, which it has not done. The Truchon decision requires a response, but matters would be much simpler if the bill only focused on a response to Truchon instead of a variety of other changes. As it is, we are forced to consider all of the elements together, not just the narrow part that responds to Truchon. This is the government's choice, not ours.

    Let us also take stock of how we have come so close to the court deadline. This legislation was presented in February. In May and June, the Conservatives wanted the House to sit in a modified form, but the government refused to allow it. Then it killed its own bill by proroguing in August. All of these moves pushed us into the mid-fall before the bill was considered. It then received a mere four meetings of witness testimony at the justice committee. The government's approach to this legislation has been to delay until the last minute and then demand urgency instead of a considered review. Let us be clear that this is a political tactic designed to subject these radical changes to as little debate as possible.

    As a high school student, I had the honour of participating in a special MLA for a Day program at the Alberta legislature. At one of our meetings, a seasoned Progressive Conservative minister explained to us how legislation was passed. Students were surprised by the length and complexity of the process. They asked why it took so long and could the process not be shortened a bit. The minister told us he was glad it took so long because one of the fastest pieces of legislation to ever pass in the Alberta legislature was the Sexual Sterilization Act of 1928, which allowed the government to sterilize people with disabilities against their will based on the analysis that they imposed an undue burden on society. Legislators at that time should have taken more time to listen to people with disabilities and considered the implications of what they were doing. The point that when we are in too much of a hurry to make decisions we risk undermining the fundamental rights of our fellow human beings, in particular, those living with disabilities, has stuck with me to this day.

    Those of us on this side of the House who are raising concerns and demanding that time be taken to consider this bill and appropriate safeguards be put in place are on the right side of history. As was the case with the Sexual Sterilization Act of 1928, when this bill is repealed in five or 50 years, I will proudly tell my grandchildren that I took a stand for the universal immutable dignity of every human being.

    Madam Speaker, let me start by saying this whole issue of process being advocated by the Conservative Party is a false argument. The opportunity for debate was and still is there, if that is truly the only interest of the Conservative Party.

    The Conservatives need to be more transparent with Canadians. Because they do not support the legislation, it is their intention to prevent it from going forward. That is the honest truth regarding the legislation. I would ask the member to be straightforward with Canadians, admit the Conservative Party of Canada does not support the legislation and that is the reason we are at the stage we currently are at.

    Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is conflating two issues.

     Do I think this is a bad bill? Yes. Did I vote against it at second reading, and will I vote against it at third reading? Yes. Did I vote in favour of reasonable amendments from my friend from St. Albert—Edmonton that would have improved the bill? Yes. Does the government control the legislative calendar? Yes. Could the Liberals have not prorogued? Could they have scheduled debate on the bill in May and June? Yes.

    Therefore, the fact that we are in this situation of created urgency is manufactured by decisions the government has made. This is the Liberals' own manufactured urgency, designed to limit considered debate on the bill. Yes, I think it is a bad bill, but I also think we could have been debating it in May and June. We could have been considering it earlier if they had not prorogued, and we could have allowed the justice committee to take the time that was necessary.

    There were four meetings of witness testimony. Conservatives put forward motions to ask that we have five, that we have one more meeting, given the overwhelming concern in opposition. We had many briefs submitted by medical practitioners that were initially rejected because of some arbitrary timeline that was not even published. It was only after a motion from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton that those briefs were allowed to be translated and presented, but even at that point they were distributed long after the consideration of amendments had started.

    This was an unreasonable process, manufactured by a government that wanted the bill to not have to undergo serious debate.

    Madam Speaker, the bulk of the original criteria under Bill C-14, I believe, remain under Bill C-7.

    In order to pursue a medically assisted death, a person must satisfy the following eligibility criteria: They must be, of course, of majority age. They must be able to make health care decisions for themselves. They must make a voluntary request for MAID that is not the result of external pressure, for example, from a health care professional or a family member. They must give informed consent after they have received all of the information they need to make their decision, including a medical diagnosis, available forms of treatment and available options to relieve suffering including palliative care. They must have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, meaning that the person has a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability, is in an advanced state of decline in capabilities that cannot be reversed, and experiences unbearable physical or physiological suffering from an illness, disease or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that the person considers acceptable.

    Does my hon. colleague support the ability to access medical assistance in dying for people who fulfill those criteria?

    Madam Speaker, again, there is a bit of a conflation of a few issues here. The member spoke about eligibility criteria. There are eligibility criteria, there are safeguards to ensure that those eligibility criteria are actually being met in a considered way, and there is also a question of context. Do people have those alternatives?

    For instance, if a person is suffering in a grievous and irremediable way because they have not had access to care that would address their suffering, they may meet the eligibility criteria. However, there is a problem there in terms of context, in the fact that they are making a decision based on limited options because the system has not provided them with the care that they want.

    In terms of the safeguards, we have heard so much at the justice committee, and I encourage the member to look at the testimony from people with disabilities who talked about situations of being pressured and being told that they were selfish for not wanting to pursue this path. We have cases of pressure. Clearly, those are problems and, in principle, members would say that obviously that should not happen. However, the fact is that it is happening right now and the people who are involved in that pressure have not been prosecuted and have not been disciplined.

     The government has held up that nobody has been prosecuted under this law so that means it is working well. Given that we have testimony saying it is not working well and there have been no consequences for those who are involved in abuses, that suggests the safeguards as they exist are failing. The government wants to take away more safeguards without addressing some of the context issues. My focus is on addressing the issues of context and the issues of safeguards in order to protect people who are vulnerable.

    Madam Speaker, my question relates more to the hospice discussion that is a part of this. I am very blessed in my riding to have two hospices. I have Hospice Georgian Triangle as well as Matthews House Hospice. Both are having a hard time these days because of COVID and fundraisers not getting their money. They are reaching out to the community, and they do such amazing work. It is dignity in dying, not just for the individual but for the family members.

    The government obviously is not investing enough money into these types of operations, number one. Number two, how important is that to the bill, having other options for people who are suffering at the end of life?

    Madam Speaker, it has been wonderful to hear members at different points in this debate speak about the excellent work being done in their ridings by those who are accompanying people in their last days and seeking to provide good-quality palliative care. It is a tragedy that most Canadians do not have access to that and that many Canadians are offered death long before they are able to receive those things that will allow them to effectively manage their pain.

    This is a choice that we have to make as legislators. We have to look at the architecture of the choice in front of people. As I said, it is not just about giving people choices. It is about asking what the options are that people have and saying if we pull everything out of that life option, if we do not have proper palliative care, if we do not have effective end-of-life supports for people, if we do not have effective pain management, and then say the only option is death or pain, that obviously is not a desirable choice. What we can do is help people get out of that choice by offering an alternative. If people's only options are pain or death, that is not a good place to be. That is not a place we want people to be in and the technology exists for better pain management than the vast majority of Canadians are receiving right now.

    We have had multiple bills in the last five years on expediting the death side of it, but not dealing with the life side of it. That sends a clear message about the priorities of the government unfortunately when it comes to seniors and people living with disabilities.

    Madam Speaker, my colleague talks about context and options. What I am hearing from the disability community in my riding is exactly that. These are people who before COVID were getting about $1,000 a month in a disability pension. Then we gave everybody $2,000 a month in CERB because we felt that is what was needed for people to live in dignity.

    The member talks about the tragedy in long-term care homes. Considering those options, Bill C-7 aside, would he support the NDP proposal to move long-term care into the Canada Health Act so that our seniors get the care they deserve? Would he support raising disability pensions to $2,000 a month so that those people can live in the dignity they deserve?

    Madam Speaker, we are going to agree with the NDP on the principle that we need to do more and do better to support seniors and people living with disabilities. There may be some cases where we disagree on the mechanism, because Conservatives value the partnerships that can exist in the delivery of, for instance, hospice and long-term care. We believe that by respecting conscience, by respecting what may be the unique and particular mandate of some of those private not-for-profit facilities, through partnerships like this we can do more and offer more collectively. Solidarity is not just about what the government does. Solidarity is about what all of us do together, politicians as well as not-for-profit organizations, faith groups and community groups.

    We may disagree on some of those mechanics, but hopefully we can work together based on a common framework that says we need to do better in terms of ensuring people have access to a dignified life option.

    Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to address the House on this very important issue and to continue to act as a voice for those who continue to be ignored.

    The government is acting as if rushing the legislation through in order to meet the Truchon deadline is its number one priority. Canadians are suffering because of the pandemic, and while people and businesses continue to fall through the cracks, the government is prioritizing expanding access to euthanasia over providing Canadians with the support they need. Shockingly, it is rushing the bill through before the mandated five-year review of the euthanasia regime in Canada has even taken place. This is reckless and this recklessness will cost people their lives.

    The Truchon decision is not a binding legal decision for the House of Commons, but the government is choosing to act as though it is, despite calls from this side of the House to appeal it. When we are dealing with something this serious, with stakes as high as life and death, it is imperative that the process is not rushed by a lower provincial court decision. Our vulnerable citizens deserve better. In all honesty, this deadline is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

    Amazingly, Bill C-7 would not only expand access to euthanasia to those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable, but goes beyond Truchon by eliminating necessary safeguards that are in place to protect the vulnerable. By removing the 10-day reflection period, people nearing the end of their lives can receive medical assistance in dying on the very same day they request it. That means, in essence, for many Canadians, their worst day will be their last day.

    I would like to point out an important statistic from the “First Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada” presented in 2019. In this report, it states that as of the date of its release, 263 Canadians who had requested MAID ended up withdrawing their requests. Because of the current 10-day waiting period, 263 Canadian lives were saved. It is clear these people felt they wanted to die on the day the request was made, but decided days later that they wanted to keep on living.

    Had the 10-day reflection period not been in place, 263 Canadians would have had their lives ended prematurely. Maybe it was a phone call from an old friend, meeting with a family member or good news from their physician that caused them to change their minds. It does not matter. The point is that they did. Why does the government want to rob Canadians of the opportunity to make that decision? It justifies the need for Bill C-7 with the Truchon decision, but where in Truchon does it say that?

    Another important safeguard that Bill C-7 seeks to eliminate is the requirement for final consent. This is one that truly frightens me. The reasoning behind the removal of this safeguard is the fact that a person may lose the capacity to consent to euthanasia before it is carried out if a person's illness advances causing significant cognitive decline. Therefore, people can give advance consent to have their lives ended should they lose the capacity to make such a difficult decision.

    It fascinates me that we all agree that if a person is unable to provide advance consent to sexual activity, and that person is taken advantage of when not having capacity to say no, a crime has been committed. However, the government believes people can provide advance consent to have their lives ended, even if they lose the capacity to say no when the procedure takes place. The problem with the principle of advance consent is that it is impossible to know what people's desires are if they are unable to communicate them. We cannot know if a person in that state truly wants to die. Maybe the individual has had a change of heart and wishes to keep on living at the time MAID is administered, but just can't say that. That is horrifying.

    The risks associated with the removal of the 10-day reflection period and the requirement for final consent are too serious for me to accept. We should remember that the stakes are as high as life and death. The government needs to protect vulnerable Canadians. It needs to ensure safeguards are in place. The removal of these safeguards puts their lives in danger.

    I would like to remind the government of the voices it ignored in its rush to meet this unnecessary deadline, the voices of disabled Canadians, their doctors and advocates. I remind members of the words of Krista Carr, the executive director of Inclusion Canada, who said that this bill is disabled Canadians' “worst nightmare”. There are also the words of Catherine Frazee, who said that the bill tells people like her that their lives are not worth living.

    How about Dr. Heidi Janz? She told the justice committee that the bill “will result in people with disabilities seeking MAID as an ultimate capitulation to a lifetime of ableist oppression.” Roger Foley bravely told the committee from his hospital bed that, if the bill passes, he will not survive and the Parliament of Canada will have his blood on its hands.

    I am here in the House to remind the government of the words they refused to listen to. The stream of euthanasia access for those who are not dying is ableist and dangerous. These are not my words. These are their words.

    Doctors who work with disabled Canadians made it very clear at committee that a 90-day waiting period is simply not enough time. They explained that suicidal ideations are very common when someone experiences a catastrophic medical episode, but with good care and support they are almost always overcome.

    In my last speech on the bill, I introduced the House to Kristine Cowley's story. Since her spinal cord injury 33 years ago, Kristine has lived the kind of life that most able-bodied people dream of, but it took her years after her injury to feel great again. She worries that people like her will decide to end their lives when they are at their lowest point.

    Now I will share the story of David Shannon. David suffered a spinal cord injury in a rugby scrum when he was 18 years old. He shared that after his accident he lay in bed close to death more times than he wishes to contemplate. David has gone on to have a career in non-governmental organization leadership and a law practice focused on human rights and health law.

    I will share a comment from David:

    Several times during this debate, members on this side of the House have asked how many stories like this will never be told if Bill C-7 passes. I urge my hon. colleagues to truly understand what is being asked here. Much like the removal of safeguards, knowing that lives like those of David Shannon and Kristine Cowley will be cut short if this legislation passes is far too great a risk for me to accept.

    Those who support the bill continue to fall back on the idea of autonomy to justify their willingness to ignore these risks, so I will read a comment from David Shannon addressing this:

    When someone is first injured, they are compromised. When someone is compromised, their autonomy is impaired. It is in this compromised state that the government wishes to offer death to Canadians. I will also remind the House of the government's absolute failure to provide disabled Canadians with the care they need. I remind the House that it often takes much longer than 90 days to even see a specialist. I remind the House what the Minister of Disability Inclusion told the justice committee: It is easier to receive MAID in this country than it is to receive a wheelchair.

    Not only are we offering death when a patient's autonomy is most compromised, but we are coercing patients to die by failing to offer them care. I have asked this before, and I must ask it again: Do we really want our legacy as members of Parliament to be the Parliament that offered patients death before we offered them care? That is where we are headed with this legislation.

    Once again, on behalf of disabled Canadians, their doctors and their advocates, I am begging members of the House to stop this attack on Canada's disabled community. They have been crystal clear about the ultimate abuse that their community would be subject to if the bill passes. I am begging members to hear their pleas. We know the abuse we can expect in the future, so the government will not be able to say it did not know, just that it did not listen.

    We have been warned in no uncertain terms about what will come, but now I would like to speak about the abuse that is already happening.

    Gabrielle Peters, a journalist who lives with a spinal cord injury, wrote the following in a recent open letter to Canadian senators. “I know that Bill C7 must be stopped because I know passage of this bill will result in preventable deaths of disabled people. I know this because I know those already happen. I know they already happen because I was almost one of them.”

    The government is rushing to eliminate safeguards for euthanasia when the current safeguards are not even being adhered to. According to bioethicist Dr. Jaro Kotalik, it is evident provincial and territorial authorities are not fully engaged in their role of monitoring, enforcing and reporting on the performance of the MAID program, which they are expected to do according to federal laws and regulations.

    This is clear from Roger Foley's testimony to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. His caregivers, who he depends on for every comfort and necessity of life, have suggested four times that he opt for MAID. Roger's death is not reasonably foreseeable, so this is completely illegal.

    It is incredible that on the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, every Liberal MP voted against protections for persons with disabilities being added to Bill C-7. Even the Minister of Disability Inclusion, who expressed in the Senate pre-study that she shares some of the concerns of disabled Canadians, voted against our amendment.

    Let me remind the House what the UN special rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities said on her visit to Canada: “I am extremely concerned about the implementation of the legislation on medical assistance in dying from a disability perspective. I have been informed that there is no protocol in place to demonstrate that persons with disabilities have been provided with viable alternatives when eligible for assistive dying.”

    The opposition tried to address that concern by moving an amendment in committee requiring that patients have meaningful access to care before MAID can be administered. I remind the House that the Liberal members voted it down.

    Let me share another concern raised by the rapporteur. She said, “I have further received worrisome claims about persons with disabilities in institutions being pressured to seek medical assistance in dying, and practitioners not formally reporting cases involving persons with disabilities.”

    Earlier I referenced the 2019 Health Canada report on MAID. While some of the statistics therein were helpful, there were clearly some issues with the report, namely the lack of any mention of abuse. The information collected was self-reported by MAID providers, so uncovering abuses was unlikely. We know there has been abuse; that much is clear. Cases like Roger Foley's, as well as those of many others, make this undeniable.

    Archie Rolland, 18 months before his death by MAID, was transferred against his will from a residence that provided highly specialized care to a geriatric long-term care facility that could not meet his needs. He said that it was not the illness that was killing him. He was tired of fighting for compassionate care.

    Sean Tagert, a father with ALS, exhausted from battling for the care he needed to live at home, was told he would have to be placed in a long-term care centre hours away from his home community and family. He was unable to live the remainder of his days at home with his young son and felt the only option was MAID.

    There are also the stories of Alan Nichols, Yvon Tremblay, Gabriel Bouchard, Tommy Sec, Jonathan Marchand, Raymond Bourbonnais, Candice Lewis and far too many more. Some of these people are still fighting for their lives and some of them already gave in to the pressure to die.

    Why are there so many horror stories? Why is there such a lack of compliance? It is simple: There is a lack of oversight. Many doctors and family members of patients have told me their complaints lie dead in the water. There also exists a culture of severe bullying in medicine, so doctors are scared to speak up out of fear of losing their jobs.

    A press release from back in March written by the Physicians' Alliance against Euthanasia said, “The pressure has been intense for many physicians, especially amongst palliative specialists, some leaving even before this latest development. Descriptions were made of toxic practice environments and fear of discipline by medical regulators.”

    When I last spoke to the bill, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice asked me if I knew of any cases of pressure that led to prosecution. There are plenty of cases of pressure, just no prosecution. When complaints are made about abuse, there is virtually no avenue for recourse. If someone complains to the police, they are blocked from investigating by doctor-patient confidentiality. When complaints are made to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, they are not followed up on. Many doctors feel cowed into submission before complaints are ever made in the first place.

    I attempted to find out from the Legislative Library of British Columbia how many complaints were lodged against doctors with B.C.'s College of Physicians and Surgeons regarding MAID. The response I got is as follows. “The College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. cannot disclose the existence of a patient complaint against a physician, unless the complaint leads to formal discipline. Therefore, the exact number of complaints to the college, whether related to MAID or not, is not possible to ascertain using public sources.”

    The response went on to offer me a media scan of newspaper stories related to MAID complaints in the hopes this would be helpful. Imagine that: The only place where any information is publicly available on MAID complaints is in the media. Shame on us. Imagine the cases of elder abuse that are happening under this easy-to-cheat scheme. We have millions of elderly Canadians with no protection from this regime because there is absolutely no way of monitoring it.

    Imagine the cases like that of my constituents, who attended a town hall I held when the MAID survey was open for submissions. Together with almost 100 people, we went through each question attempting to understand and respond in a thoughtful way. The more questions we answered, the more we all realized the issue was far too complicated and nuanced for a survey to be of any good.

    Then a young father stood up and told his own story of being diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. In the town hall, he explained how he had become depressed following his diagnosis and sought counselling to help him cope with his new reality. Instead, his counsellor offered him MAID. He was shocked that in his darkest hour a professional counsellor would suggest the very thing that was extremely tempting for him, but not in alignment with his ultimate goal to live his best life to its natural conclusion.

    The medical professional on our panel was shocked. This was completely illegal under current law and should have been reported, to which the young man said this: How does one even report it? Imagine that: This man, whose life was put in jeopardy, was completely unaware of even how to report the incident. The doctor said he could go online and write a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and told him to do it right away. The young man replied that he did not have the energy. He was going through chemotherapy and was absolutely exhausted. He could not wrap his mind around anything extra at that time.

    How many people are out there right now who either do not know who to file a complaint with or just do not have the energy or strength in them to fight? They are already fighting a battle with death and now we want them to go online and file a complaint they may not live to see to its conclusion.

    Let me close with a comment from a constitutional lawyer, Derek Ross. He said:

    There are horrible abuses of the current MAID regime taking place, which anyone who is engaged with it will know. The bill is a nightmare to disabled Canadians and to physicians across Canada. The risks associated with it are too serious to accept, and the stakes are as high as life and death. We cannot get this wrong.

    Madam Speaker, one gets the sense, listening to the member, that she is very passionate on the issue, and I do not question that at all. However, I substantially differ with her regarding the attention paid, particularly by our health care professionals, family members and dear friends, to the type of abuse that the member seems to be convinced exists, if it is in fact there. I have never heard a complaint. I have never had a constituent complain to me personally regarding abuse in this area. That is not to say it is not there, but I do not think the member supports the idea of MAID legislation, and that is the question I have for her.

    Does the member support the need for legislation of this nature, even in an amended form?

    Madam Speaker, I support two very important principles. The first is that choices are patient-initiated, which is very important. The second is meaningful access to care before MAID is carried out.

    If we cannot even manage to offer palliative care or psychiatric care, how can we honestly do what we are doing? The palliative care bill that we passed a number of years ago says that MAID cannot be considered voluntary if there is no meaningful access to care. I am begging members to consider that this is a bad bill. We need to focus on offering good medical care.

    I will give the member a few statistics that come from the Canadian Association for Long Term Care. The 2017 federal budget included a historic $6 billion over 10 years for home and community care, but long-term care was not included in this investment. The national housing strategy does not include long-term care. The home support work pilot for foreign caregivers does not include employment in long-term care. The 2019 federal budget did not include investments in long-term care. The federal government flowed $343.2 billion in COVID-19-related spending in the first quarter of this year, and not one dollar was committed to supporting long-term care.

    How are we going to support our seniors, our vulnerable, if we do not invest in long-term care?

    Madam Speaker, the member gave an excellent speech.

    It is interesting to observe the discussion between some of our colleagues and members of the government. We are pointing out that in testimony, especially at the justice committee, people were reporting significant problems. The member read some additional stories. These are people with disabilities who were being pushed toward euthanasia even when they had not expressed any interest in it. On the other hand, the government is saying that the system must be working, because nobody has been charged, complaints are not being made through official channels, and nobody has called the office of the member for Winnipeg North to report this issue, which I am not sure would be the appropriate reporting mechanism anyway. There is a disconnect, but at the same time, they are both true. It is true that there are problems. We know this. It is also true that people are not being disciplined or held accountable when abuses take place.

     The member has spoken about this, but I would love to hear more about how we can actually address this disconnect and ensure that, first of all, abuses are not taking place, and secondly that we have safeguards to support and protect people and that we give them avenues, or have others advocate for them, when there are situations of pressure towards death. The reality is that we will just never know about most of these cases with the problems in reporting and support that are there. We are just never going to hear about the vast majority of times when this happens.

    Madam Speaker, I have been an advocate on this issue for many years now, and worked with Mark Warawa, an amazing member of Parliament who is no longer with us. I have had many people come to me with their concerns about issues of non-compliance. Perhaps other members have not been paying attention, but had they, and had they been advocating on behalf of the disabled and the elderly, they would know that this was happening. There is absolutely zero way of monitoring it.

    Before anything, we absolutely need to ensure that vulnerable Canadians are protected. We are focusing on Bill C-7 rather than on ensuring that there is some sort of protocol in place, as the UN Rapporteur talked about, where we can monitor what is going on rather than just on MAID providers. We are opening it up more and more, and we have no way of knowing how much abuse is happening.

    Again, I am speaking on behalf of those who are not able to speak for themselves and I am saying it is happening. We need to watch out. We need to take care not to push these myths forward.

    Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my colleague a question. Earlier the Leader of the Opposition referred to a legal term called “decisionally vulnerable”. My colleague was just talking about long-term care, but the promise that the government made a full five years ago, in regard to an investment in hospice and palliative care of $3 billion, has not come to pass.

    I am wondering how the member feels in regard to whether that would exacerbate the feeling of being vulnerable for those people who are decisionally vulnerable presently.

    Madam Speaker, what we are hearing is that those who are vulnerable are not able to access meaningful care. Without access to meaningful care, many of them have no choices. They are in our hands and we are not offering them care. We are offering them euthanasia.

    I would like to point out what happened with MP Mark Warawa. He was diagnosed with cancer and it took him nine days to see a palliative care specialist. There were only two of them in the hospital there. The fact that it took him nine days to be able to see a palliative care specialist shines a light on the fact that our system needs more support. We need to ensure that these sorts of care are in place for those who are in need of them. To ignore them like this, and to rush this legislation in the way that we have been doing, is absolutely shocking. To see the vulnerable advocates who came forward at the justice committee, and who were ignored, is quite shocking. I would love to see the government stop and actually listen to those who are begging it to ensure there is care, and not a rush to death.

    Madam Speaker, I know my colleague has been following the debate. I saw her on the screen earlier, so she would have heard everything. One of the arguments that has come up in the course of the debate was a suggestion from the government benches that the bill is being introduced in order to comply with court-ordered rules regarding maintaining the constitutionality of our law. Moreover, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General was opposed to the previous MAID legislation because it failed to do this.

    With regard to the various amendments that were put forward by the Conservative Party, is it the case that any of these suggested amendments would have had the effect of causing the new legislation to not be compliant with the Constitution, or is it the member's view that the legislation nevertheless would have been fully compliant if amended as suggested by the Conservatives?

    Madam Speaker, it is important to understand that we looked very closely at what our amendments were to ensure that they would be allowed. Unfortunately, the Liberals voted all of our amendments down.

    Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

    I rise today to participate in this important debate on Bill C-7, which seeks to expand medical assistance in dying, or MAID. While the Liberal government has summarily dismissed the role of Parliament with respect to the all-party committee study, an evaluation of this law, I believe it is still important to ensure my remarks appear on the record because Bill C-7 is literally a matter of life and death.

    Let me begin by quoting my hon. colleague, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, who posed this question to the government during the earlier days of our hybrid sittings. In the context of advocating for defibrillators to be placed in community halls, hockey rinks and other places Canadians gather, he asked:

    My colleagues on both sides of the House know I am a strong supporter of our institutions and our history, and of protecting them for future generations to appreciate, learn from and, in some cases, even revere. This is true of Parliament, historic sites across Canada and even statues of our founders for their vision and even, at times, for their faults, and sometimes many faults. My hon. colleague for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston was posing a simple but profound question to Parliament, which was what is the value of life, and how can it be measured? It is a question that all members of Parliament have been consumed with since the start of the coronavirus pandemic: How can we protect and save lives? It is a question that will form the basis of debate in the House of Commons for the remainder of our natural lives and well beyond.

    In just over eight months, all levels of government have spent a combined half a trillion dollars in their struggle against the pandemic. Rich or poor, old or young, married or single, with kids or grandparents: it does not matter what families or households look like. Everyone is impacted by COVID-19, and governments have acted. The measures brought forward were, in one way or another, based on one simple, profound truth: that elected officials at every level of government across the country support life, and want our nation to fight for it and protect it.

    I stand today as someone who will be voting against this piece of legislation, Bill C-7. Medically assisted death is a practice that, if left unchecked, could in some dark corners of society turn the right to die into an obligation to die.

    How is it that a government that advocated overwhelmingly to accept closures and economic lockdowns in response to the coronavirus can be the same government that has unmoored us from protecting Canadians, by vastly expanding the legal parameters of medically assisted death? It is grisly.

    I would like to quote the member for Vancouver Granville, the former minister of justice, who stated the following about this legislation, Bill C-7:

    It is very troubling that this is the direction the Liberals have chosen. A single decision in a single province by a single lower court has upended the law as it stands today, passed by a previous Parliament.

    A culture of life is abandoned. Even the most basic safeguards are deemed by the current justice minister, the cabinet and caucus to be overly restrictive. We have a fragile consensus established in the last Parliament and with Bill C-7, we will undo that important consensus. I hope we can rediscover that consensus again in a future Parliament when its leaders are more reflective on matters of life and death and perhaps will express some humility when we face these questions.

    We must, as parliamentarians, even those who sit across the aisle, reject the unwise extension of medical assistance in dying in our society. However, I am dismayed that this will not happen.

    Bill C-7 is medical assistance in dying in name only. Its sponsors cling to that description to give it a fig leaf of respectability and to make it palatable to the public. Bill C-7 would strip away both safeguards to protect vulnerable Canadians and even the belief that one's death should be near, imminent or even reasonably foreseeable. Whereas medical assistance in dying has built in safeguards, today's bill does not and we are simply left with medical assisted death.

    Madam Speaker, one of the issues that is really important is the fact that we have to deal with the courts and court decisions, which lays out questions that government has to look at with respect to legislation.

    What I find concerning about the last court decision is that the federal government never appealed it. I do not think there has ever been a first nation ruling in any court ever that the federal government has not appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, fighting tooth and nail. However, on a fundamental question on the issue of a foreseeable death, something that is difficult for all of us to deal with but we understand it, we understand why it was brought in and we understand why the Supreme Court made us come forward with legislation, this was ruled on by a provincial court and the federal government did not appeal it before bringing it in for legislation and then went beyond the decision.

    Does my hon. colleague think it would have been better if we had actually appealed it, had a very clear ruling from the Supreme Court and then responded to that?

    Madam Speaker, I do think that would have been the better approach, to examine the ruling and appeal it the Supreme Court to get a broader interpretation of the law.

    The last Parliament was right in the approach it took in crafting the legislation by striking an all-party committee. That committee came up with recommendations. Not everyone agreed with it, but the bill that came out of Parliament had broad consensus in the House despite some of the flaws, which even I see in the current legislation. At least it had that democratic participation. As well, it went through the Senate, received royal assent and became the law.

    Today we are left with a single court decision, as my hon. colleague said, from a lower court judge that was not appealed. I think that was done as a rush to judgment by the government to make changes. I will note for the chamber, and I am sure it has been noted before, that the current justice minister voted against the current law.

     At the time, he felt it was not sufficiently robust or expansionary. Opportunities have allowed him to re-craft that law in a way that ignores Parliament and ignores the input from the last Parliament, which was sought from all parties. Today we are left with a much diminished bill that breaks that consensus. Because of that, we will be debating this into the years ahead and in Parliaments ahead.

    Madam Speaker, a lot of discussion has been had around the safeguards issue. I wonder if my friend and colleague could comment on how this bill greatly diminishes the safeguards. He talked about how they were carefully crafted in a way that respected the democratic process in the last Parliament. Could he talk about how some of those safeguards have been reduced or completely eliminated in the bill, which go beyond the court decision that the government uses as justification for the bill it has introduced?

    Madam Speaker, that is exactly right. The crafters of this bill like to tell us in Parliament and Canadians that they were forced to do it, that a lower court forced their hand to come up with this legislation. However, in many cases, as my hon. colleagues have pointed out and as the former minister of justice who is now an independent member has noted, this bill goes far beyond the court ruling. It would remove safeguards.

     For example, the 10-day reflection period is gone. Other important safeguards have been removed. This will have an impact, I believe. It will have a grisly impact over time as medically assisted death becomes just a push to death in some corners as people are forced to consider things they would not have otherwise considered. I worry about this. I worry about it for those Canadians who are in a vulnerable position or near their end of life or even people who have given up for a brief time. Often, we know, with health care and with better care, that people can rebound, not always, and I know there are tough cases out there, but this legislation will send us in the wrong direction on these important questions.

    Madam Speaker, it is an honour to enter into debate on such an important subject.

    The first thing I would like to address is the comments that the Minister of Justice and other members of the government have been making that somehow the Conservatives are holding this bill up, that we are somehow responsible for this delay. I will expand on this, but there is really one word that completely rejects that argument, “prorogation”.

    The government came forward with the legislation before. It certainly will not surprise any of my constituents, but when the government used its excuse for the need for a legislative reset, it just happened to coincide with the day that very revealing documents were to be released relating to an unprecedented scandal the Prime Minister and various members of the government were facing, it prorogued Parliament, resetting the legislative agenda, because of COVID, they claimed. Now many of the bills they introduced in the previous Parliament have been reintroduced in this Parliament. Then they make it about the Conservatives somehow holding up the process.

    We are 24 days behind in the legislative process during which we could have dealt with this legislation and many of the other important things, COVID-related and otherwise, yet here we are. The words that come to mind about it are not necessarily parliamentary, but it is a shame that we find ourselves in this position and that members on the government side would suggest we are somehow not doing our jobs by debating legislation that is literally about life and death.

    Constituents will hold government members to account on this subject. I have heard often from those concerned on all sides of this issue. I will get to some of the comments that the Minister of Justice has made more recently. There is the need for dialogue, discussion and careful consideration so we can strike the right balance. That is why Parliament exists, the hallowed chamber that we all have the honour and privilege of sitting in,so we can have discussions.

    I would love to see the composition of the House changed a little with respect to the numbers of seats that particular parties have. I am certainly doing my best to ensure that happens, and there is some encouraging news on that front. However, it is interesting that the people who Canadians send to this place, regardless of the composition, is due to the importance of the dialogue associated with every aspect of our jobs here, whether it be COVID-related, or related to medical assistance in dying, as we are debating today, or the many other issues that come before this chamber and its committees.

    We cannot diminish the requirement for us to do our due diligence in every aspect of the word. I am certainly doing my part in this debate and resoundingly rejecting the government saying that somehow the Conservatives are delaying this. The blame for that lies directly on the desks of the members of the Liberal government. They are manufacturing urgency when the reason there is even urgency to begin with is due to carefully crafted political games by members of the government opposite.

    As listened to the Minister of Justice talk about Bill C-7 over the course of specifically the last number of weeks, there has been an evolution in his responses. The last time I participated in debate was from my constituency office and the Minister of Justice, the day before, had talked about how the Liberals had found broad consensus on this issue, that they had come together and done what the people had asked them to do.

    He bragged about the 300,000 submissions to the consultations, when I know for a fact, and I mentioned this in my last speech, that the position the government came to was certainly different from many of the consults my constituents sent in, which did not seem to be acknowledged.

    I find it very interesting that when the minister answered yesterday, there was a change in his tone. The Minister of Justice referred to this as a sensitive subject. He was much more nuanced in his approach, acknowledging that there is wide disagreement on it, but that Conservatives should hurry it up. I am paraphrasing, but the change in the minister's tone is a clear example that the Liberals' hands have been slapped. The Liberals claim to have consensus on an issue when it is clear they do not.

    We have disability rights advocates and medical professionals who certainly seem to have a wide consensus, although I will not go so far as to say it is universal, as that is an inappropriate use of a term with such a broad application. However, there seems to be a tremendous amount of consensus, not universal, that this bill is flawed and deserves due consideration.

    That is exactly what this institution's role is, whether it is us or the other place debating Bill C-7. I imagine the bill will pass. At second reading and report stage we certainly saw the bill pass, so I anticipate that we will see a similar result and that the other place will also have the opportunity to go through the dialogue.

    I do want to talk about how we are facing a tragic irony. The Government of Canada, like governments around the world, like provincial governments and like municipal governments, has poured trillions of dollars into COVID response programs. It is without question that those who are most at risk and most vulnerable among us for this virus, which has gripped our world over the last number of months, or close to a year, are seniors. I find it tragically ironic that, in the legislative reset supposedly prioritizing COVID, we would be debating this bill, which puts some of our most vulnerable at risk.

    While governments have poured trillions of dollars, in many cases rightfully so, into COVID relief and response programs, we are here debating a bill that would allow people to end their lives and reduce safeguards on a decision that can be no more final. That tragic irony brings us to today. The government members will talk about the need, and often they criticize Conservatives' debate on many aspects of the COVID response, yet here they are pushing for something that is the antithesis of what all parliamentarians would certainly say is trying to do what is best for constituents, which is doing what is best for Canadians.

    Often the constitutionality of this place is forgotten, and the reality that the highest elected office in this land is not that of the prime minister, but that of the member of Parliament. We could have a lengthy discussion about why there is that misunderstanding, whether it is because of the prominence of American media in Canada, education or whatever the case may be, but in regard to the primacy of Parliament in Canadian law and society, the member Parliament is the pinnacle of what this institution is.

    There are 338 of us. When constituents talk about things like western alienation, they ask how we can make a difference. My response is that I know I can make a difference because I occupy the same number of seats as the Prime Minister does, as the member for Winnipeg North does, and as does any one of my Conservative, Bloc, NDP and Green colleagues. That is the strength of our institution and why free votes are a part of the reality of this place. I would certainly encourage my colleagues—

    The hon. parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government.

    Madam Speaker, it is a false argument for the Conservative opposition to give the impression this is about process. It is not about process; it is more about a lack of confidence. The Conservatives, as the official opposition, are saying they do not trust the Superior Court of Quebec, which I would suggest impugns the character and competency of the Superior Court of Quebec judge. They are saying no to the legislation because it should have been appealed.

    My question to the member is this: Will he come clean, be transparent with Canadians and say that the Conservatives do not like the legislation, and that if they were in government, they would not respect the superior court and go to the Supreme Court of Canada?

    Madam Speaker, I will respond to the member opposite in two ways.

    I would encourage the member to read our constitution, if he has not had a chance, to understand the appeals process in the lower courts, higher courts and the Supreme Court. It has nothing to do with the confidence of that decision, but with the decisions made within what I assume are the hallways or back rooms of how the current government operates. I would encourage the member opposite to look into that process, because I am sure he would find it enlightening.

    When it comes to being open and transparent, there is certainly a lot I would say on that. Where are the documents regarding the WE Charity scandal? Where are the documents regarding every aspect of—

    The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

    Madam Speaker, I think we can all agree that there is a history in this country of human rights violations against those in the disability community. It has been mentioned by Conservative colleagues many times today.

    My question is this: Because of that, do they support the call-out from the disability community for a guaranteed livable basic income; more investments into affordable, accessible social housing; and more supports to ensure people have what they need so they can live in dignity, yes or no?

    Madam Speaker, when it comes to ensuring that Canadians have the opportunity to live in dignity, absolutely, yes. However, when the member talks about the need for supports and ensuring there are programs to protect the most vulnerable among us, I would simply pose this counter-question: How would that be paid for?

    It would be paid for by the prosperity of Canadians, including from natural resources. I have heard from indigenous communities that are troubled by the fact there are political opponents in this place who would try—

     I must interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle on a point of order.

    Madam Speaker, there is a problem with the interpretation.

    The interpretation does not seem to be working.

    It is working now.

    The hon. member for Battle River—Crawfoot.

    Madam Speaker, when it comes to ensuring Canadians have the opportunity to live their lives in dignity and that we have well-funded social programs and whatnot, we need to ensure our economy grows, so the government has the revenue to pay for that world-class suite. This is as well as a continuous consideration of ways to ensure it continues to serve the best interests of Canadians. I would ask the member to consider supporting some of these resource projects, which are largely supported by indigenous communities from her region and others.

    Madam Speaker, what a privilege it is to listen to the member for Battle River—Crowfoot today. I had the honour of working with this young man when he was in the Saskatchewan legislature. To hear him represent the views of his constituents today on such an important bill is inspiring. It shows what a great parliamentarian he is and will continue to be for a long time to come.

    My question is this: Could the member expand on some of the reasonable amendments our Conservative Party has put forth regarding the bill? Maybe he could give an example or two of why he thinks the Liberal government would vote against reasonable amendments that would have put safeguards in place, such as the 10-day reflection period, which was championed by most people with disabilities across this country.

    Madam Speaker, it is a little hard to believe that it was only a few years ago that I was a staffer serving this member and others in their work as MLAs. It is certainly an honour to be able to serve in this hallowed institution now with him as colleagues. I look forward to working with him for many years to come. Hopefully there will be a redistribution of seats and a reconfiguration, and I hopefully look forward to that being from the other side.

    He mentioned two very important amendments that were brought forward that would have ensured the real crux of what we are talking about here, which is that the most vulnerable among us are to be protected. Two very simple aspects of that were the reflection period and the time limits on reasonably foreseeable death.

    To protect those most vulnerable among us should be of the utmost importance for each and every member of the House, so I would encourage all members, with my final few words, to vote the way they feel best represents their constituents, not the way their party leader suggests they should.

    Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of emotion that I rise again in the House to speak to this extremely sensitive issue, medical assistance in dying.

    In this speech I will highlight the parliamentary and judicial reality. As the House leader of the official opposition, I have a thing or two to say about that. In fact, I have quite a few things to say about that. I will talk about the reasons why we are gathered today to talk about Bill C-7 at third reading stage. I will also address the substance of the issue, that is, my position and that of my colleagues.

    Before I begin, I would like to make certain things clear: this is a topic that leaves no room for partisanship. On this file there are no good guys or bad guys, good positions or bad positions, good votes or bad votes. There are just positions that we are comfortable with, that we believe in and are prepared to defend personally as individuals. This topic may be terribly divisive, just as it may be a golden opportunity to have an intelligent conversation that is above all respectful of differing opinions.

    As you well know, Madam Speaker, I do really enjoy political battles. I do not hate the arguments and the counter-arguments. On the contrary, it is part of politics. However, there are issues that do not lend themselves to this.

     As far as I am concerned, when we talk about assisted dying situations, the issue is not a partisan one. There are no bad guys and good guys. There are no good votes or bad votes. There are only votes and positions in which we are comfortable. Where we stand firm on that is being respectful to our counterparts. This is the issue, and this is why I want to address it. While sometimes, the House knows, I like to be a little aggressive in my comments, in this case I will try to do my best to be modest, because I want to be respectful to each and every position.

    Bill C-7 responds to a decision of the Quebec Superior Court. However, this is not the first time that medical assistance in dying has been addressed.

    Members will recall that the Province of Quebec was the first to begin working on this issue, which led to the passage of a law on medical assistance in dying. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I know what I am talking about because I was a member of the National Assembly of Quebec. In passing, I was elected for the first time 12 years ago on this day. As a provincial representative, I worked for six years on this sensitive issue under three ministers and three different governments.

    I want to be clear. This issue can be dealt with in a non-partisan way, and the proof is that three premiers—Premier Charest, Premier Marois and Premier Couillard—in two different political parties led the parliamentary work that resulted in the adoption of the first provincial law on medical assistance in dying in Canada. I would like to point out that this was done under the leadership of a premier who was a physician, Dr. Philippe Couillard. I was there.

    Then came the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Carter, again, on medical assistance in dying. The federal government had to decide how to define and set the federal criteria for medical assistance in dying. Prime minister Stephen Harper, recognizing that the federal government was on the verge of an election campaign, rightly decided, with the support of the other political parties, not to address this issue. That was the right thing to do.

    As I said earlier, this issue is not a partisan one. That is why former prime minister Harper did the right thing and put it aside during the campaign in 2015. Then the new government elected, which could have been Conservative, NDP or Liberal, would table a new bill. I have been part of that discussion. I have been part of that committee.

    The government was well advised to create a cross-party and, more importantly, joint parliamentary committee, which had both senators and members of Parliament as members.

    I had the honour of sitting on that committee, at the request of my then leader, the Hon. Rosa Ambrose. I had the privilege of having very interesting and fascinating conversations with Canadians across the country who had different points of view. We came to a consensus in the form of Bill C-14. I want to be clear about the use of “consensus”, because the way democracy works, and this is a good thing, means that some people are in favour while others are against.

    Bill C-14 was passed in the House of Commons five years ago. This bill included a clause that could be considered a sunset clause, since it required that parliamentarians review the legislation.

    It was inevitable that this issue would end up before the courts, and it did. A Quebec Superior Court judge issued a decision in Truchon v. Attorney General of Canada on September 11, 2019.

    Through the Minister of Justice, the federal government immediately reviewed the decision, decided to hold an online consultation and introduced a bill in the House of Commons in February. As we see it, that was the first major mistake. I have nothing against the judge or the Quebec Superior Court. Every court has its own responsibilities and makes its own decisions. The judge was appointed to that court in 2017, which was a good thing, and she was appointed to the Court of Appeal on November 20, which was a very good thing.

    Every aspect of this issue is sensitive. No matter which law we pass, there will be legal challenges. The better approach, the more responsible, respectful, reasonable approach, would have been for the government to appeal the ruling and then take it to the Supreme Court. As my colleague from Alberta quite rightly said earlier, the Constitution says that every province has a superior court and a court of appeal before cases reach the Supreme Court.

    For that purpose, we need to have the highest degree of evaluation. In that specific case, the Superior Court of Quebec is good, but it is not enough. We need to be sure of our judgment on that. That is why the government should have appealed the decision and then let the Supreme Court judges decide what is good and right based on the law, based on our Constitution and based on our Canadian history that we are proud of. That is how it works.

    However, that is not how it went. The government decided to call the shots right now. I heard my colleague from Winnipeg North. He is always articulate and always passionate, but with all due respect, I do not agree with him. Just because we are appealing this decision to the appeal court and then the Supreme Court, that does not mean we pay no respect to the Superior Court of Quebec.

    It is simply a matter of respecting the judicial process as it is set out in our Constitution, particularly when it comes to an issue as sensitive as medical assistance in dying. Regardless of the law that is passed here, we can expect it to be challenged.

    It would have been far better to draft legislation based on a Supreme Court decision, as we did five years ago, rather than on a Superior Court decision. I say that with all due respect for Justice Baudouin, who was just recently appointed to the appeal court by the Liberal minister, and for the Quebec Superior Court, which plays an important, essential and extremely serious role in our justice system.

    A debate took place in the House of Commons. This was well before COVID-19, before the words “in-person meeting” became part of our everyday vocabulary and at a time when the word “zoom” referred to a camera lens and not to a way of holding meetings. In short, we have adopted a lot of new concepts in 2020.

    Getting back to what I was saying, Bill C-7 was introduced in the House of Commons on February 24 following the decision rendered on September 11, 2019, and the subsequent government consultations. On February 26 and 27, we began debate at second reading. We followed the usual regular, rigorous process. Discussions were held. Things were being done in a reasonable manner, even though it would have been preferable if this matter had been brought before the Supreme Court.

    Then COVID-19 happened. The government did what it had to do, that is, it postponed the study of this bill and sought an extension from the court because of the delay. The court agreed. Parliament resumed in September, and that is when the government made a serious mistake. I will come back to that later.

    Now let's get to the substance of Bill C-7. As I said earlier, there will not be unanimity on this bill because society is not unanimous. That is the very foundation of democracy. That is why we are here in the House of Commons. Some people are for, and some are against. Some people are right-leaning, and some are left-leaning. Some people are sovereignists, and some are federalists. Society is not a monolithic block. The beauty of society lies in all its different textures. That is the democracy that we must preserve. That is why we need to have intelligent debates in the House of Commons.

    That is why, during the analysis, our party proposed two amendments that are entirely respectful and reasonable and that seek to protect the most vulnerable people in our society. The amendments essentially call for the 10-day reflection period to be restored when death is reasonably foreseeable, and for the 90-day reflection period to be increased to 120 days when death is not reasonably foreseeable. The purpose of those amendments is to ensure that individuals who choose to act have enough time to look into their hearts and make the decision that feels right.

    That is why prestigious organizations have spoken out against Bill C-7. The Canadian Psychiatric Association has expressed very serious reservations. The Canadian Bar Association has said that it has conditional reservations about this bill. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities opposed the bill. Groups like Living with Dignity, a Quebec-based network, and Inclusion Canada have spoken out against the bill. Indigenous spiritual leaders have expressed very serious reservations. In short, society has spoken, and that is what makes for an interesting debate.

    We needed to have a proper debate, with people on both sides of the issue. That is why we would have liked the debate to run its course, without the very heavy influence of the deadline imposed by the Quebec Superior Court.

    I will now talk about our work in Parliament, which is essential. I mentioned that Bill C-7 was introduced in February, before COVID-19 and the return of the House. However, the government decided to prorogue Parliament. We know that the Prime Minister made this decision because he was not pleased with the work being done by our MPs on the parliamentary committees studying ethics and WE Charity. The more the work progressed, the more things were heating up for the Prime Minister. He therefore decided to prorogue Parliament.

    This prorogation put an end to all committee and House work, and the study of Bill C-7 had to start all over again. As a result, we lost 24 days of parliamentary time. Had we not had this prorogation, we would have resumed on September 21, not on September 23 with the throne speech. Furthermore, had we started on September 21, we would not have lost all the work that had already been done so far on the bill, which adds up to 24 additional sitting days.

    The government has the power to prorogue Parliament. Even if I accept the prorogation, why did the government wait so long to introduce Bill C-7? Today we are being told that the Superior Court's December 18 deadline is fast approaching and that we need to hurry up so the Senate can pass the bill in time.

    The government presented its throne speech on September 23. When was Bill C-7 introduced? It could have been introduced on September 24, like Bill C-2 was. It could have been introduced on September 25, like Bill C-3, the bill on judges, was. However, this bill was introduced on October 5, costing us seven parliamentary sitting days.

    Now, the government is lecturing us, claiming that the Conservatives will not stop talking for talking's sake and that we are wasting time. No. The government has full control over the agenda, and it is the one that decided to prorogue Parliament, wasting 24 days of parliamentary time. On top of the prorogation, this government wasted seven sitting days before introducing this bill, even though it knew full well that everything had to be finished by the Superior Court's December 18 deadline.

    Consequently, I will never accept responsibility for the fact that we are still not done, a week and a half out from the December 18 deadline set by the Quebec Superior Court. The government is entirely responsible for this situation, and I will never allow it to accuse us of causing delays.

    Not once have Conservative members acted petty, not at second reading, not in committee, not at report stage and not at third reading. Some members support this issue and others oppose it, but we have always expressed our opinions in an appropriate, respectful way.

    We never used filibusters or any other rule to be sure that we would let it go, without any decision made. We were respectful, because this issue calls for being respectful. We did it correctly. I am very proud to be the House Leader of the Official Opposition, because members on this side of the House, the official opposition, did a tremendous job at each and every stage. Conservative members were very serious; they were very parliamentary; they did it correctly.

    That is the opposite of what the Liberals did at the Standing Committee on Finance, where they engaged in systematic obstruction for over 16 hours to prevent the committee from studying ethics scandals, and at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, where the Liberals engaged in almost 40 hours of obstruction over the course of 10 meetings. That is what I call wasting time. We have done serious, diligent work here, and we are very proud of that.

    As I said, the government that is being held hostage by that date, December 18. If ever this bill were not passed by Canada's Parliament, including the Senate, by December 18, what would happen? Bill C-14 will continue to apply, and the Truchon ruling will apply in Quebec.

    Basically, the regime proposed in Bill C-7 would not apply, but life would go on, no pun intended. People will keep doing what needs to be done, as they have done from the start, except that the Truchon decision will apply in Quebec and Bill C-14 will apply in the rest of Canada.

    I would like to talk about one final, but critical, issue.

    With regard to freedom of speech and freedom of vote, I am very proud to be the House Leader of the Conservative Party. On this issue, each and every Conservative member has the right to vote on his or own belief. The best proof of that is that my leader, the future prime minister of Canada, the member of Parliament for Durham, voted against and I did for. This is what democracy is all about.

    In our party, we have people who are against, like my leader, and there is me, the official opposition House leader, who voted for. That is what democracy is all about. We should fight for that. Even if I disagree with some of my colleagues and even if all my colleagues behind are not pleased to see that I will vote in favour, so what?

    We are the only party to preserve that tool that is so important, that tool that can fight cynicism in politics. I am proud to be part of that team.

    During the vote on the amendment, there were even Conservative members who voted against the entirely reasonable amendments that we proposed. When it came time to vote on the report, 13 Conservative members voted with the government on this bill. I was one of those members. There were six Quebeckers, seven members from outside Quebec, anglophones, francophones, people from the east and west and even neighbours. I voted in favour, but my neighbour from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, who is right next to me, voted against.

    Let us celebrate this democracy. Let us celebrate this parliamentary system. Let us celebrate full freedom of conscience when it comes time to vote on these issues. Most of all, let us rightly stand up for the work of parliamentarians and vigorously condemn the fact that this government has been dragging its feet, which is why we ended up here with little time to spare.

    Madam Speaker, when I hear my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, whom I hold in high regard, say that the government is dragging its feet, everyone will remember the Carter case.

    Everyone will recall that the Supreme Court of Canada had at the time unanimously ordered the Harper government to introduce the legislation that would become Bill C-14. For 10 months, the Conservative government dragged its feet to such an extent that when our Liberal government came to power in 2015, we had only two months to introduce that bill. We had to ask for an extension, which was unprecedented.

    My colleague says that we are going too fast. It is always the same doublespeak: we are either dragging our feet or we are going too fast.

    In fact, Bill C-7 is a logical continuation of Bill C-14. My colleague sat with me at the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying that was behind Bill C-14. Does he agree that we failed to hold all the consultations necessary to comply with the Carter decision from the outset?

    Madam Speaker, it is always nice to hear from my colleague from New Brunswick.

    I will just refer to his province because the riding names are very long and I have to admit that I can never remember them. I commend him for the very serious work he does. He is a serious lawyer, and I have a lot of respect and regard for him.

    First, with regard to the question about 2015, as I said in my speech, we were on the verge of an election campaign. Medical assistance in dying is an issue that must be above partisanship, while an election campaign is the pinnacle of partisanship. That is normal because we are fighting for our ridings and our seats and some debates may become acrimonious because we are being guided by partisanship.

    Partisanship is not at all what is needed in the debate on medical assistance in dying. That is why I think the Harper government did the right thing by saying that the next government should be the one to address that situation and by asking for an extension from the court. That is what was done and rightly so.

    With regard to the relationship between Bill C-7 and Bill C-14, I would like to remind my esteemed colleague, who, unlike me, is fortunate enough to be a lawyer, that the Canadian Bar Association expressed some very serious concerns about the constitutionality of Bill C-7 and some of its provisions.

    I therefore encourage my colleague to be cautious, while reminding him that, personally, I am going to do like him and vote in favour of this bill.

    Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my hon. colleague for the powerful logic of his remarks today.

    While we know the Liberals have blocked reasonable amendments to protect the most vulnerable in committee and here in the House, we also know that the Minister for Disability Inclusion testified before the Senate committee pre-studying Bill C-7 that she has grave concerns and that she regularly hears from people who are appalled to discover that a family member with a disability has been offered what she calls “unprovoked” medical assistance in dying. We also know that the Liberal House leader has questioned the acceptability of amendments to be made potentially in the Senate.

    I wonder if my colleague could address the legitimacy of possible amendments, when Bill C-7 does arrive in the Senate, for better protection of the most vulnerable.

    Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my hon. colleague, and if I remember correctly, he voted in favour of the amendment and also in favour of the bill.

    The point is that we have to always think of the most vulnerable. This is the job we have to do, but we also have to respect the process. This is why my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton tabled two amendments, which were very reasonable, to protect the most vulnerable of us. The House decided and voted against those amendments. It is sad, but this is the reality. We should respect the will of the House of Commons.

    However, as we have to respect the will of the House of Commons, we must also respect the will of the Senate. Most of the senators there have been appointed by the Prime Minister. Therefore, let the Senate do its work. This is why, when we finish third reading and have the final vote here in the House of Commons, the job will continue at the Senate. As the member for Thornhill said, during the Senate consultations, the Minister of Disability Inclusion said that she had some concerns.

    Why does the Prime Minister push so hard, especially with a senior cabinet minister who is there to protect the most vulnerable?

    Madam Speaker, the member is very much a distinguished parliamentarian, both from the provincial legislature and national legislature here in Ottawa, and is very much aware of process. For example, Conservatives attempted to bring amendments in the hope that if they passed in committee then they would be in a position to support the legislation.

    However, the member is also aware that we do not have a majority government. That means they could not get the support of opposition members for the Conservative amendments, just like today the Conservative leadership supports not passing the legislation. The Conservative leadership has made it very clear that it would have taken this to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that because it did not get its amendments, it does not support the legislation.

    Would the member acknowledge, in the name of transparency, that it is the Conservative Party House leadership that does not want it to come to a vote? It is not the process, because even if we debated this for another month, the opposition has the mechanisms, tools and so forth to ensure it never comes to a vote.

    Madam Speaker, I will remind my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North that I deeply appreciated, as I said earlier in my speech, that the Leader of the Opposition voted against and the House leader voted for the bill. This is the best demonstration of democracy. The Conservative Party respects everyone, as well as each of their opinions, even all my colleagues here who applaud me. Maybe they are disappointed to learn I will vote in favour, but this is what democracy is all about.

    Yes, as I said earlier, we would have preferred to see the Supreme Court table a decision on this issue. Whatever happens, and the member knows this quite well, it will be challenged in court. As far as we are concerned, it would have been preferable to have a bill based on the toughest jurisdiction, which is a Supreme Court decision, so that we could build a bill, which we could oppose or support, that would at least have a foundation based on the greatest, toughest and highest court of this country, the Supreme Court of Canada.

    Madam Speaker, my colleague started out by saying that often the problem with this debate is that motives are being impugned. Unfortunately, I am going to have to come to his defence because the member for Winnipeg North impugned his motives.

    My colleague from the NDP, the great musician, made an excellent point earlier. The government will take first nations to court and will take veterans to court, but with a life and death situation, it will not deal with that in the Supreme Court of Canada. How does my colleague feel about that?

    Madam Speaker, I feel very uncomfortable.

    My colleague raised first nations, saying the government is ready to take them to the Supreme Court. First nations leaders said that they are concerned about the bill, as did the Canadian Psychiatric Association. There is no link there with the Conservative Party of Canada. No, it is Canadian society who has these concerns.

    More than that, as human beings, we can change our minds. A friend of mine, who was a strong supporter of the medical assistance in dying policy, changed his mind. Why? Because his father was suffering two years ago and he had to fight with him about it. He said that he was a strong supporter of assisted dying, but not anymore because he lived through it with his father. This is what he told me.

    As I said, there is no right or wrong decision and no right or wrong vote. There are just votes and decisions based on what we feel comfortable with.

    Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to again speak to the bill. There were a lot of things that I wanted to say the first time around at report stage that I could not share because we ran out of time, but hopefully I will be able to conclude my remarks today.

    I am splitting my time with the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

    The Leader of the Opposition spoke in the House earlier today and talked about how Bill C-7 is moving our country from a regime of assisted death to a regime of assisted suicide. We presently have in place former Bill C-14, which was brought in as a response to the Carter decision. That bill recognized the fact that the Supreme Court said that medically assisted death was a right but needed to be surrounded by guardrails, by safeguards that would ensure that the most vulnerable in Canada do not end up dying when they have an opportunity to live a productive life.

    The Carter decision resulted in legislation that imposed a requirement that death needed to be reasonably foreseeable. The legislation before us eliminates that and a whole bunch of other safeguards that the original legislation was intended to keep in place.

    Why are we at this place in the first place? Members in the House know that a lower court from Quebec, one single judge, ruled in the Truchon case that the reasonable foreseeability aspect of Bill C-14 violated the Charter of Rights. It was unconstitutional. This is a lower court from Quebec, one single judge, making a life and death decision for Canadians across the country.

    One would expect, from a Liberal government that takes veterans to court and takes first nations to the Supreme Court of Canada, that this life and death decision would be appealed. The Truchon case would be appealed through to the Supreme Court so that we could have the Supreme Court, which articulated the Carter decision, comment on whether reasonable foreseeability was in fact constitutional.

    Instead the Liberal government said, no, it was not going to appeal and in fact it would simply respond to the Truchon case and do exactly as that single judge of a lower court asked it to do. The Liberals eliminated reasonable foreseeability from Canada's medical assistance in dying regime. That is why we are here.

    Members may recall, when C-14 first came forward, when the Carter decision had to be responded to, that parliamentarians noted the fact that this represented the crest of a steep, slippery slope toward making assisted suicide available to a broader and broader group of vulnerable Canadians. That was the concern that we expressed at the time and, quite frankly, some people mocked us. They said we were fearmongering. They pooh-poohed our concerns. Today, here we are and our concerns have been borne out.

    Last time I did not get a chance to read into the record a letter from a doctor in my community of Abbotsford, Dr. James Warkentin, who expressed his concerns about the legislation. He says, “I appreciate your invitation to write to you regarding C-7. As a family physician, the decriminalization of medical assistance in dying in 2016 struck me at my core. How could killing someone one day cost me my licence and send me to jail, and the next day be expected of me to provide? Furthermore, how could our most vulnerable be protected from the pressure to end their life one day and then have state-sanctioned avenues the next?” He went on to reference the six reasons why over 1,000 Canadian physicians have signed a letter opposing Bill C-7.

    In a moment I am going to read that letter into the record, because I believe those judges would appreciate having that letter on the record so it is very clear that many medical professionals across the country oppose Bill C-7, which would remove many of the safeguards, the guardrails, the protections for the vulnerable which were originally intended under the Carter decision.

     The letter begins like this:

    As a side note, when they refer to “individuals who have little lived experience of the realities involved in the everyday practice of medicine”, they are referring to us, the parliamentarians in the House. It goes on:

    That is an excerpt from a letter from over 1,000 physicians in Canada. It does go on, but I do not have time to complete it.

    That is the perspective coming from our medical profession across the country and it is the disability groups, medical professionals, faith groups, palliative care advocates and first nations that are all calling for more caution before expanding assisted suicide, yet the government has refused to listen to those concerns.

    At the committee, our Conservative opposition members brought forward numerous amendments that would have addressed some of the failings of the legislation, that would have reinstated the protections for which the vulnerable within our country have called. Seventy-two disability groups oppose this legislation. They want more protections, yet they are not there.

    I encourage my colleagues across the way to please give this legislation more time. Give us an opportunity to get this right.

    Madam Speaker, whether it was the Supreme Court of Canada five years ago in the Carter decision, or the Superior Court decision in the province of Quebec or parliamentarians in this or previous sessions debating this for hundreds, if not thousands, of hours via committees or the chamber at second or third reading stages and so much more, this issue has been debated in a very passionate way for many years. Let there be no doubt that every life is of equal value. I believe that Canadian society wants this legislation passed.

    When the Conservatives were in committee, they proposed amendments and had those amendments passed. I assumed they would agree to pass this legislation. It was not just the Liberal Party agreeing, other political parties in the House also agreed.

     Could the member provide his thoughts on that issue?

    Madam Speaker, the member has suggested that the contents of Bill C-7 have been debated for years and years. The legislation was just brought forward by the Liberal government. The issues of expanding medical assistance in dying to effectively become assisted suicide need fulsome debate, because it is an issue of life and death.

    Unfortunately, the member does not realize that. He does not understand how critical it is that the 72 disability groups across Canada fear the legislation will put their members at risk. The most vulnerable in our society, whether it is the poor, children or those with mental health issues, all feel vulnerable under the legislation. Why is that and why is the Liberal government not listening to those concerns?

    Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to be part of a party that allows its members to vote with their conscience when it comes to bills like this. We have stressed that this is not a partisan issue. From what we heard from Canadians across the country, this impacts them at their core. I would like some feedback from the member on the concept of being able to vote our conscience.

    I grieve for people across the floor and around me who I do not think have that freedom. That is something Canadians absolutely look for in their Parliament, the realization of our responsibility in these circumstances to vote our conscience.

    Madam Speaker, I am safe in saying that the Conservative Party is the only party in the House that takes free votes seriously, that regularly provides its MPs the avenue of saying yes or no to legislation, especially on issues of conscience.

    I would extend that to protections that should be available to physicians and medical practitioners across Canada to not to be involved in any way in facilitating assisted death or assisted suicide. Across our country physicians are being told it is part of their obligations as physicians to refer people to another physician if they themselves will not counsel on the issue of medical assistance in dying. This is not about a country that respects freedoms and conscience rights.

    We need to step into that gap, protect physicians from having to do something against their conscience in the same way the Conservative leader provides us as parliamentarians a free vote on any matters of conscience.

    Madam Speaker, I have been a little disappointed at the tenor of the debate recently regarding MAID. I am hopeful we can carry this back to the passionate, but compassionate, debate we had earlier.

    This is a matter of conscience and I am certainly very proud to be part of a party that has given me, as the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, the freedom to decide how I would like to vote on this bill.

    When we look at the legislation, after extensive consultation with folks inside and outside of my riding, a number of issues have occurred. The challenging part for me is that despite many advocates for persons with disabilities raising the alarm bells, much media attention on this and how they might feel, we really have not seen any amendments or changes to this legislation.

    I would say this earnestly and with openness for my friends across the aisle. Are we so arrogant that we believe this language is absolutely perfect and completely beyond improvement? The member for Papineau used to say a number of times that there was always room to be better and there was always the opportunity to be better. In response to that, with all kindness and respect, this bill can be better and there are opportunities to do that.

    Some legislation the government has put in during this last year alone has failed. The rent subsidy program did not go off as well as the government had hoped. All reasonable observers, and even members on the other side, would acknowledge that. That is why they had to relaunch the program. The LEEFF program is also not working up to capacity and no doubt will have to be redone. We have seen those challenges.

    The difficulty with this legislation is that there is no ability to redo it. This is a life or death matter. If we lose members of our most vulnerable communities due to the legislation, we cannot come back. There is no redo of this. I am perfectly aware, as a lawyer, of the obligation the court has put in front of us from the Truchon decision to get this legislation revised. However, there are multiple devices, as our leader spoke about, to get that time extended.

    In all respect and fairness, any reasonable, objective observer would say that it was the government that prorogued Parliament for an additional six weeks. We would have had the time to pass this on time.

     I will get into my remarks, but let us keep the tenor of this debate how it is meant to be and how our constituents want it to be. They want a deep discussion of the important issues of passion, the very reason our Parliament exists and the very reason this reasonable debate is what makes Canada, in my opinion, such a great country.

    To get into the substance of my speech, those who support Bill C-7 do not want anyone to suffer. Those who do not support it do not want anyone to suffer either. It is important to begin this controversial debate by recognizing that both sides, regardless of how different their beliefs are, are passionate for the right reasons. As with any legislation that will have a dramatic impact on people's lives, the discussion is very important.

    Medical assistance in dying is a relatively new topic. Canada is one of the few countries that has legalized it so far, and as such, we much proceed in this new territory with the utmost caution. As our members have spoken about, we need the safeguards. This is not just the members of the Conservative Party mentioning this. Some of our most noted jurists in Canadian history have brought this up, jurists from all sides of the political spectrum who have called for and demanded that there be safeguards. As we say, and it is only common sense, this is a matter of life and death. While we should be guaranteeing a death with dignity, I strongly believe we should first guarantee a dignified end of life.

    In order to do this, in order to make sure that people are choosing medical assistance in dying for the right reason, I believe that we need to have a conversation around the state of palliative care in our country. Unfortunately, the state of palliative care in our country is less than favourable. While medical assistance in dying is currently considered an essential service, palliative care is not. This is an issue that should be gravely concerning to everyone in this House and across our country.

    Palliative care is a type of health care for patients and families facing life-limiting illnesses. It helps patients to achieve the best possible quality of life right up to the end of one's life. I know, and I am sure that many members share this, I have had some of the most important conversations of my life with loved ones and friends at or near the end of their life. These moments provide so much quality to those who carry forward and provide so much advice that I carry forward with me to this very day.

     Where it is possible to retain a reasonable quality of life, we as a society have a sacrosanct obligation to make sure that people are taken care of, so that, if they do decide on medical assistance in dying, they have done so of their own free will and not because of a poor quality of life that could have been avoided.

    Quality palliative care focuses on the concerns of patients and families, and works to support patients through both physical and mental symptoms of serious illness. This may include everything from helping to manage a patient's pain and symptoms to keeping them comfortable in their home for as long as possible.

    Unfortunately, while 75% of Canadians would prefer to have their last moments at home, only about 15% have access to palliative home care and 60% die, instead of being surrounded in the homes that some of them have grown up in, in cold, stark hospitals.

    Many physicians have raised the concern, because the majority of Canadians do not have access to high-quality palliative care. It is possible that many people, or at least some people, may be choosing MAID because they do not feel there are other options. Amongst the concerns are those laid out by Dr. Stephanie Kafie, a family physician in Niagara Falls with a focus on caring for the elderly.

    She has said that something that has not been considered in the rush of passing this bill is the state of palliative care. It is not considered an essential service, however, MAID is. In her experience, many requests for MAID reflected a need for palliative care. Rushing misguided laws regarding the medical profession has led to an erosion of their profession and started significant damage to doctor-patient relations. Their hands are tied. They are not consulted on the drastic changes that are being made.

    As Dr. Kafie notes, the importance of consulting with doctors in the creation of legislation is so crucial. As is so often is the case with parliamentarians, not enough people working on the legislation have any experience in the field itself.

     Dr. Drijber, a palliative care physician, has spoken out on this issue, stating that this legislation seems to ignore the importance of the dignity that comes with palliative care, the importance of those final moments for both the living and those who will pass on. He has gone so far as to say that it seems the government has not fully consulted with experts or people who work in the field to help guide them through their decision-making process.

    When we come to a conclusion here, in all earnesty and openness, I am reaching out to the other side. They know that there are people in their constituencies who will have differing opinions from them, as do I. We need to make sure that all voices are heard. Are we so arrogant as parliamentarians to think we should not change the legislation, that we cannot, as the member for Papineau has said, always do better?

    Madam Speaker, where I agree wholeheartedly with the member is in regard to the issue of palliative care, home care services or long-term care services.

    Even though these are provincially administered, the national government does have a role to play. I have always believed that. It goes beyond just transferring cash. We have to ensure there are some standards, that there are opportunities for individuals to be able to have those types of services, in particular, palliative care. We have too many palliative care patients passing in hospital hallways and rooms versus in a proper palliative care facility or in a home.

    Could my friend provide his thoughts in terms of to what degree he would like to see the national government take a more proactive approach in working with other governments, and possibly what role he believes Ottawa should be playing in ensuring that there is more consistency across Canada when it comes to these types of services, in particular, palliative care?

    Madam Speaker, I appreciate that well-thought-out and reasonable question. I understand completely that the member's intentions are nothing but the best to make sure that our seniors and those who are at the end of their life have the best possible care.

    It is also important to enable innovation and provincial innovation, so that we can see that for Quebec or Ontario, and we are able to get those best practices across the various provinces. It is also critical that we manage our finances well, so that the federal government is in a position to enable proper funding of health care transfers, not as the transfers were slashed under the Chrétien government.

    Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's background is not a lie. He is a lawyer.

    There were concerns expressed in 2016 with the legislation then, about the potential for judicial creep and now we are experiencing some of that. Why would the decision, then, not be appealed to the Supreme Court where the court could actually uphold some of the guardrails and safeguards that it put in place? I am wondering if my hon. colleague would have a comment on that.

    Madam Speaker, truly, we have some of the most brilliant jurists in all the world in Canada, in our upper courts, in the Supreme Court, and in our lower courts as well, so why we would not give them the opportunity to put their learned intelligence and wisdom to this legislation I just do not understand.

     As we have seen, our justices have much to contribute to this debate. Whether it be Justice McLachlin or Justice Cory or Justice Sopinka, they have all offered so much to this debate and to the discussion and, in many ways, they define the very terms of this conversation.

    Madam Speaker, I always like listening to my colleagues and I especially like listening to my friend from Winnipeg North because he really focuses the discussion so clearly. He said that he thinks it is really important to learn lessons about palliative care and how the federal government could play a role. Well, he stood in the House with his Prime Minister when we brought forward a national palliative care strategy and the Liberals voted for it.

     I raised it during the first round of discussions on the end-of-life bill and asked why we do not have a palliative care strategy.

     The Liberals said, “Oh well, we will but we have to respond to the Supreme Court, we have to do this first”.

    Therefore, here we are. We have another end-of-life bill and we have the Liberals saying, “Can anyone can tell us how we could do a palliative care strategy? It is such a good idea, maybe we could start some kind of conversation.” We have been through this. We voted on it. We told the Canadian people it would happen and the Liberals did nothing. How long is it going to take?

    Madam Speaker, I might have difficulty answering that question. I certainly enjoy the member. I must say he is one of my favourite parliamentarians with his ability to ask questions.

    In response to that question, the time for action is now. I would concur that, unfortunately, the current government does have some challenges sometimes with the follow-through of its great words, as the member's leader would say.

    Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

    Here we are on December 8, 2020, only 10 days away from a deadline imposed on Parliament by the Quebec Superior Court from the Truchon decision. The Liberal side of the House is suggesting that perhaps it is the fault of members of the Conservative Party for delaying progress on this very important topic. I take exception to that.

    How did we come to this point in the first place? Our leader spoke this morning and he raised this topic, and so I am just going to repeat some of what he said. First of all, there was the failure of the current Attorney General to appeal this decision of the Quebec Superior Court. It is a lower court. In my opinion it was a wrong decision, and it should have been appealed, first of all, to the Quebec Court of Appeal. We would have had the benefit of the wisdom of that bench. Subsequently it should have been appealed, like all important constitutional issues, at the Supreme Court of Canada. I have the deepest respect for the Supreme Court of Canada and the constitutional expertise and scholarship that has come out of that court. The Attorney General has missed that opportunity to be able to engage the Supreme Court of Canada in the discussion on this very important topic.

    Parliament, as our leader said, is the top court of the land. We are sovereign. We can make and unmake any laws that we want, provided that they are within the four walls of the Constitution of this country. That is the dialogue that we should have had with the Supreme Court of Canada. That, sadly, will not be happening on this topic.

    The second very important point is prorogation. We had been making good progress on Bill C-7. We were talking about this back in February and March already. Prorogation happened, and the debate had to go right back to square one. How is that our fault? Why did the Liberal government decide on prorogation? It was not for any good policy considerations. It was strictly for political considerations, so we are not going to wear that. The Liberal government is going to wear that.

    Another point that I would like to raise is that if Bill C-7 reacted in the narrow way that the Truchon decision required, this debate would be much shorter and faster, but the government has decided to take the opportunity to expand the debate. The Liberals are suggesting that we are disrespecting the Truchon decision and the Quebec Superior Court by raising these issues. We are not the ones who are raising the additional issues; it is the government in its Bill C-7 that is doing so. If Bill C-7 was just about the Truchon decision, then it would not be talking about removing the 10-day reflection period. The “First Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada, 2019”, just recently published by Health Canada, has told us that, of the 7,336 MAID applications in 2019, 236 of the applicants changed their minds during the 10-day reflection period. Obviously, that 10-day reflection is there for a purpose. It is serving that purpose very well. Why would we be removing that?

    Furthermore, Bill C-7 has introduced the concept of advance directives and, consequently, the elimination of contemporaneous consent by the person who is asking for the medical assistance in dying. That would be shifting the final decision away from the person receiving medical assistance in dying to the person who would now be going to apply it. We are no further ahead. I do not think that is an improvement.

    Then, there is the other requirement, removing the second witness. What is that about? Why is that so important? There are so many legal documents that require two witnesses, wills for example, to make sure that there is not coercion on the part of people who might benefit. In the case of wills, the beneficiaries of the will might benefit. It is a long-standing legal principle that two witnesses be required. These changes are significant, and disability groups across the country have told us so loudly and clearly.

    Of the many groups that appeared before the committee hearings, not one of the disability groups was in favour of Bill C-7 and the removal of these protections. That is why we are at an impasse in this eleventh hour.

    Mr. Neil Belanger, executive director of the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, commented on a newly released document entitled “In Plain Sight”, commissioned by British Columbia's minister of health, the Hon. Adrian Dix, to review indigenous-specific racism in British Columbia's health care system. Although it is a review of B.C.'s health care system, the principles in it would apply right across Canada. Mr. Belanger and the group that he represents are concerned about the proposed removal of safeguards. He said:

    He went on to say in his testimony before the Senate committee that:

    Other disability groups are saying the same, yet this government is refusing to listen. Mr. Belanger takes this a step further. He and the organization for which he speaks advocate sticking with the end-of-life criteria already in place after the Carter decision and after Bill C-14, which was the well-considered opinion of Parliament just four and a half years ago.

    Recently, when Mr. Belanger's organization presented to the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs on Bill C-7, he said that:

    Track 2 is medical assistance for those people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable.

    People may state the obvious: that this is all water under the bridge and that the Truchon decision said that it is unconstitutional. To go back to my original comments, that decision should have been appealed, and it was not. I am going to have to tell Mr. Belanger that the debate has been had already. This government has sadly treated as a settled constitutional principle that it is unconstitutional for any law of this country to refuse medical assistance in dying to those who meet all the other criteria, but are not dying.

    This is a fundamental shift that was not debated. This government has stated on many occasions that it had broad consultations and 300,000 people responded, but the one question it never asked was if people agreed that medical assistance in dying should be given to those whose death was not reasonably foreseeable. The fundamental question was never asked. That is not a true consultation, in my opinion. It is a pretext for advancing a legislative agenda that had been preconceived. It has been said on several occasions in the House during this debate that the current Attorney General voted against Bill C-14 four years ago because it did not address that, and did not expand MAID to that point. This is the current Attorney General imposing his will on Parliament and forestalling that very important debate.

    The first report by Health Canada on the state of medical assistance in dying stated that roughly 2% of Canadians in 2019 used medical assistance to die. That is the average across the country, but it is much lower in some provinces. It is the average in Quebec and far above the average in British Columbia.

    Why is that? Is it because there are more sick people or old people—

    The member will have to complete that thought during questions and comments.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary.

    Madam Speaker, I believe the bill we are debating reflects a great deal of effort on the part of the Supreme Court of Canada and its decision five years ago, the Superior Court of Quebec, tens of thousands of Canadians and hundreds of hours of debate inside and outside the chamber in the form of standing committees and so forth. From what I understand, it has the support of the New Democrats, the Green Party, the Bloc and the Liberals. We know it is not an issue of process, and I would counter any false argument presented by the Conservatives that it is. Rather, the Conservatives do not want this bill to come to a vote because they believe it should have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada.

    Would the members opposite be transparent with Canadians and make it very clear that this is the real reason why they are not supporting the legislation?

    Madam Speaker, the real reason we are not supporting the legislation is because it does not provide adequate protection for the disabled. It is not just members from the Conservative Party stating that, but many disability groups that have come to committee to represent the opinions of their members. This is a broad discussion across all of Canada.

    Why is the Liberal government not listening to those real concerns? We have offered reasonable solutions and amendments. The Liberals are turning all of them down. It seems they have predetermined what the outcome will be. They are not listening to the debate.

    Madam Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues for the very thoughtful and compassionate speeches and the different perspectives I have heard. One issue I have not heard anybody speak about today is that Bill C-7 creates a waiver of final consent for those already assessed and approved for assistance who fear the loss of competence before their chosen date. This is colloquially referred to as the “Audrey Parker amendment”.

    Audrey Parker was diagnosed with stage four breast cancer that had metastasized to her bones and caused a tumour to grow on her brain. She spent the last weeks of her life raising awareness about these challenges. She was worried she would lose competence and be unable to give her final agreement because of the influence of the cancer on her brain, and she ended her life prematurely. I do not think that is what anybody wants. We want people to live their full lives. We do not want anybody exercising their right to MAID before they would otherwise want to, because of a legal requirement.

    Does my hon. colleague have any comments on that part of the bill?

    Madam Speaker, I have to admit that the Audrey Parker argument is very compelling. Nobody wants Canadians to die earlier than they should.

     I believe the best argument against the Audrey Parker principle, as it is sometimes referred to, is that last year alone, and we have hard evidence of this, 263 people changed their minds during that 10-day waiting period. I recognize that even under Bill C-7 there is an opportunity for people to change their minds if they are still cognizant. If not, then somebody else makes the decision. Mrs. Parker probably would have signed that document, but ultimately it is the doctor who has to make the final decision as to whether or not to administer the lethal injection. That doctor might wonder if she is one of the 263 people who would change their minds. Why is it the doctor's decision?

    Madam Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the debate on Bill C-7, having myself been a member of the joint committee behind Bill C-14.

    I heard my colleague say that he has the utmost respect for the Supreme Court of Canada. I would remind him that we cannot talk about Bill C-7 without first talking about Bill C-14, since Bill C-7 is the logical and natural continuation of Bill C-14. On top of that, the Supreme Court of Canada, in which my colleague has great confidence, issued a unanimous ruling in Carter.

    Is it not entirely reasonable to keep to the Carter decision, for example, since the Truchon decision addresses in some ways the gaps in Bill C-14, to accept that Bill C-7 finally closes the loop of the Carter case and Bill C-14?

    Madam Speaker, that question gives me an opportunity to distinguish between the Carter and the Truchon decisions. I have the greatest respect for the Supreme Court of Canada. There is great scholarship coming out of there.

    The Carter decision underlined the importance of a scrupulous regime of protection and safeguards for the disabled. Truchon did not undermine that, so there is no contradiction there. It is this Parliament that is contradicting Carter.

    Madam Speaker, earlier this morning, the leader of the official opposition began today's debate with a strong speech about the problems with Bill C-7 and how the government has been handling it. He started by saying that it could be the most important bill before this Parliament, regardless of how long it actually lasts. After all, we are discussing a matter of life and death, and the decision we make here will make all the difference for countless Canadians.

    These are people who will be making their own choices, which will directly impact their own lives, their legacies, their loved ones and their caregivers. It is a choice they might not have expected to ever have to make, whether because of a sudden illness, the unrequested suggestion of assisted suicide or some other reason. Anything could happen, which is why we have to maximize the protection and safeguards there will be for each person involved, especially for those who are most at risk of abuse and neglect.

    At this last stage of debate in the House of Commons, I want to focus on the choice, or in some cases the lack of choice, a person might face. Some argue we are seeking their best interests by expanding access to MAID, not only for the relief of suffering but also purely for the sake of free choice.

    On the idea of choice, we have to remember this is not an ordinary decision. Someone's death, premature or otherwise, is literally a point of no return. The decision is final. With all the circumstances leading someone to consider the end of their life, it gets complicated very quickly.

    To explain it from someone's lived experience, I will quote journalist Ben Mattlin, who suffers from spinal muscular atrophy. He wrote the following in the New York Times:

    Despite Mattlin's significant physical disability, he is a father, a husband, an author and a journalist. He has a successful life and he knows what he wants. He is less vulnerable than others who lack the confidence and spark he has, who could easily be persuaded that assisted suicide was their best option.

    The idea of this happening voluntarily is, in many subtle ways, the start of a slippery slope that leads to it happening less voluntarily, or involuntarily. The choice is not always so free, especially if real alternatives are lacking. One of the greatest fears a lot of people face in their lifetime is their own mortality, and in a lot of breadth that is what we are discussing here today.

    When I talk about Bill C-7, when I talk about facing our own mortality, I often reflect on the experiences my wife and I have had, when grandparents and other loved ones within our family have passed away. We have spent countless hours at their sides, either in the hospital or in their care home. The time spent with one's family is so precious and valuable.

    Within the last year, the health of my wife's grandma deteriorated. Her husband had passed away a few years prior, and she had been living in, I think, level 1 care for most of COVID. We were not allowed to go into the facility and had to stand outside the building. She had a nice corner unit with lots of windows, so we were able to observe her condition and speak to her through the window.

    Over the course of time, we watched her state of mind and physical state deteriorate steadily and progressively. Her state degraded to the point that she could not lift her head when we came to the window to talk to her. She could not see who was there.

    When the restrictions were lifted and one or two people were allowed into the unit, my wife was able to sit beside her grandma, hold her hand and tell her that she loved her. To see her state improve, and to be able to lift her spirits, was so powerful.

    I think that as we are having this discussion on Bill C-7, we especially need to ensure that we value life and that we are giving people every option to live their lives. We should also have the opportunity to have our loved ones at our sides as we go through the final moments and face the ultimate end of our mortality, the end of our life.

    We need to make sure that people have full supports as well. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I note that one of the biggest parts of Bill C-7 is the need for palliative care. I have talked at length previously about the need for it to make sure we are providing real choice and real options to people so they have all the options they need and, quite frankly, deserve.

    The vast majority of people who are being considered under Bill C-7, or who will consider MAID, are in our senior population. When we look at the contributions they have made to our society, these are the people who built our country. These are the people who have provided us with the freedoms and opportunities we have. However, here we are discussing a bill, which we will be voting on in the near future, that basically signals to them that we do not value their lives and do not value the contributions they have made to this country. That is what the bill signals.

    I know people will argue that this is not what the bill is doing, but sometimes it is not about what the bill directly does, but what it is going to do indirectly. The moment we signify to our country, to our citizens, that we inherently do not value and defend life to its fullest extent, we are sending the wrong message to people.

    I realize that people who advocate for Bill C-7 and medical assistance in dying are doing it from a position of compassion. I will never question somebody who says that is the reason they are advocating for it. However, we also need to realize that part of a compassionate response to people who are at that point in their life—

    I apologize, but the member will have two and a half minutes to finish his speech after Oral Questions and five minutes of questions and answers.

    Madam Speaker, Gandhi once said, “The future depends on what you do today.” Today I rise to honour someone who shaped our future by what she did every day.

    Last month our community lost Anna Kisil. Anna immigrated to Canada from Ukraine in 1990 and with her family built several businesses. Then she gave back to our community, to Canada and to Ukraine, and not just with her generosity, but with her leadership, eventually becoming president of the World Federation of Ukrainian Women's Organizations.

    Anna received many medals and awards for her service, including the Cross of Ivan Mazepa awarded by the president of Ukraine.

    What struck me about Anna is how she supported younger people to ensure that they could make a difference for today and for the future. In fact, one time Anna fought for me and gave me an opportunity without which I would likely not be standing here today living my dream, and I am not alone.

    About that moment, Anna once said to me, “I fought for you because I believed in your potential to make a difference.” Anna Kisil not only made a difference, but helped others to do so as well. In so doing, she made a monumental contribution to Canada, to Ukraine and to our community for today and for the future.

    Vichnaya Pamyat.

    Madam Speaker, I want to thank all those constituents who have reached out to me with their questions and concerns during this pandemic. Canadians have questions about the decisions being made by their governments and the plans to get their lives back.

    It is alarming to hear the push-back on citizens who are engaged and asking critical questions about the Prime Minister's comments during his speech to the United Nations about a reset. By refusing to answer these legitimate questions and hiding behind name-calling, the Prime Minister demeans his office. To quote a recent article, “Labelling concerned citizens ‘conspiracy theorists’ and claiming that those who accept the prime minister's very words given at the United Nations, are succumbing to ‘disinformation’ is sheer bullying. Our key to freedom and upholding democracy is knowledge, action, and civic involvement.”

    I encourage my constituents to keep asking critical questions. We owe it to ourselves and future generations.

    Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to mark the first reading of my private member's motion, Motion No. 36, calling for the designation of August 1 as emancipation day in Canada. Our motion calls for the House to recognize the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade on August 1, 1834. As well, the motion aims to recognize the significance that August 1 holds as a historic celebration of freedom among Black Canadians.

    I want to acknowledge the support the motion has received from Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard, the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer and the members of the all-party Parliamentary Black Caucus. I want to commend the valuable insights I received from community voices like Rosemary Sadlier from the Royal Commonwealth Society, the Ontario Black History Society and the Canadian Association of Social Workers.

    In closing, I call upon colleagues in the House to vote in favour of designating August 1 of every year emancipation day throughout our wonderful nation.

    Madam Speaker, Acadia has a national holiday to celebrate its history, the history of a dignified, often mistreated, but proud and unique people.

    Every year on August 15, the excitement of National Acadian Day reverberates inland all the way to Montcalm, and I am proud of that. I am a Quebecker of Acadian descent and I represent a riding that is home to New Acadia, where many Acadian families have settled.

    This year, however, because of bureaucratic insensitivity, the Acadians are facing a second deportation, as they are being asked to move their national holiday to either Canada Day or the Quebec national holiday if they want to receive subsidies. This is a direct attack on the dignity of a nation that deserves respect for the significance of its national holiday, which celebrates the resilience, pride and fighting spirit of the Acadian people.

    When will the Minister of Canadian Heritage right this wrong?

    Mr. Speaker, on November 27, 114 Canadians were invested into the Order of Canada, one of the country's highest honours.

    I especially want to congratulate one of them, Christian Barthomeuf, a resident of Brome—Missisquoi and the owner of Clos Saragnat in Frelighsburg. Throughout his career, Mr. Barthomeuf has contributed to the world of viticulture by creating new ways to cultivate that are adapted to Quebec's climate.

     Mr. Barthomeuf has had a remarkable journey and is known above all as the inventor of the famous ice cider, a product for which he has won many international awards. He has helped promote Quebec agricultural products abroad and garner worldwide recognition for Quebec. Even after 40 years, the man who has been called the “rebel farmer” continues to innovate and to enrich our region's food products.

    In closing, I congratulate this winemaker and entrepreneur who has made the region of Brome—Missisquoi very proud.

    Mr. Speaker, on that starry night many years ago, there was a message of hope given in a very dark place of history, declaring, “Be not afraid; I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all people. On this night, a saviour is born. Glory to God in the highest, peace on earth and goodwill to all people.” If there has ever been a year that we needed some good news to pierce through the darkness of fear, doubt and despair, it would be this one.

    May we embrace the peace that was promised all those years ago and overcome the uncertainty of fear we face today. May the goodwill that was expressed that night continue to be expressed through our lives, as has been so clearly displayed in the valiant efforts of our front-line workers, small business owners, truckers, grocers, farmers, fish harvesters and many others, who have all made tremendous sacrifices and together have laid the foundation for our country's comeback.

    May the love, joy, peace and hope that was brought that night many years ago be with everyone and their families this Christmas and throughout the coming year. On behalf of my wife Crystal and our family, I would like to extend to every member of the House and all Canadians a very merry Christmas and a happy and healthy new year.

    Mr. Speaker, let us face it: 2020 has been the worst, but after hearing yesterday's announcement about vaccines rolling out, we know there is light at the end of the tunnel. Unfortunately, though, Christmas and the holiday season are still going to be difficult and different.

    For some they will be particularly difficult, so I am asking the residents of my great riding of Pickering—Uxbridge and Canadians across the country to think this holiday season about helping to support local businesses by shopping local. They should consider donating to local food banks or picking up a couple of extra toys and donating to local toy drives. Despite the difficulties this year, we can all, in the name of the holiday spirit, do our part to help make this year a little brighter for those who really need it.

    Merry Christmas, happy holidays and good riddance to 2020.

    Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to stand in the House again on behalf of the wonderful folks of the Long Range Mountains. I want to thank them and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for doing their part to control the spread of COVID-19 in our province. As my colleague has said, the light is at the end of the tunnel.

    Today, as we take time to talk about church bells and sleigh bells and jingle bells, I want to speak of another bell: Charlotte Bell.

    Many of us know Charlotte as the CEO of TIAC, the Tourism Industry Association of Canada. We know her passion for the tourism and hospitality sectors and we know that during the pandemic that passion only grew. Her forward thinking and outright love for this industry, its leaders, workers and clients, many of us have seen first-hand. We have seen the results of her hard work and planning among the many winding roads that she has travelled throughout our country from coast to coast to coast. Charlotte is now travelling another road, and wherever this road leads I know her passion for tourism will always be with her.

    For my friends, here and at home in the riding of the Long Range Mountains, when they hear the bells of the holiday season this year I want them to pause and reflect, be safe and treasure those near and dear to them. May the road we all travel on lead to a magical place.

    I wish everyone a merry Christmas.

    Mr. Speaker, this summer, Canada lost a true friend and ally. Jim Phillips was the president and CEO of the Can/Am Border Trade Alliance for almost three decades. His legacy is embodied in the strong relationship and organization forged between Canada and the United States.

    Under Jim's remarkable leadership, the essential decision-makers from both countries could gather in one room and always left with the game plan to fix any border irritant, with real results flowing closely behind. Without Jim's hard work, among many other things, we would not have NEXUS cards or a border that flows as reliably and safely as the 49th parallel.

    Jim will be greatly missed by all of us engaged on Canada-U.S. issues. We will work tirelessly to keep up the work that Jim dedicated the last 30 years of his life to.

    I thank Jim. Rest in peace, my friend.

    Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, Lisa and I were very saddened to learn of the passing of our dear friend, the Hon. Ron Irwin.

    At the local level, he served as a school trustee, city councillor and mayor. In 1980, Ron was first elected as the Liberal member of Parliament for Sault Ste. Marie and served as parliamentary secretary to then justice minister, Jean Chrétien. Ron was elected again for a second term in 1993 and served as the minister of Indian affairs and northern development.

    Irwin was invested into the Order of Canada and was a recipient of the Queen's jubilee medal. I had the honour to present him with a Canada 150 pin for his exceptional public service career, spanning over 35 years. Ron served not only our community but our nation with strong conviction and persevering efforts. He served as Canada's ambassador to Ireland and as a consul general in Boston.

     I was blessed to have Ron as a friend and a supporter. Nobody campaigned like Ron. Rest in peace, dear friend.

     Lisa and I offer our condolences to his wife Marg, his family and his so many friends. I thank him on behalf of all constituents of Sault Ste. Marie for his years of service.

    Mr. Speaker, I just received hundreds of surveys back from constituents, raising concerns about poor Internet and cellphone connectivity in our riding.

    The ongoing frustrations of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially with restrictions to work and school from home, have amplified their exasperation and demand for better service. Back in 2017, only 37% of rural households had access to the sufficient Internet speed identified by the federal government, compared with 97% of urban households. Now in 2020, as more people are working, studying and streaming at home, our already unreliable connections have worsened.

    The Liberal government has repeatedly promised to improve Internet connectivity but has failed to deliver. This is a slap in the face to my constituents who pay more to get less and often buy additional equipment, like boosters, just to get five megabytes per second downloads, if they are lucky.

    Canada's Conservatives are demanding concrete action from the Liberal government to connect rural Canadians and eliminate these barriers to equal opportunity in today's digital economy and society.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals like to strut around the Davie shipyard in Lévis and make fine promises. Once the photos have been taken, they slip away without doing anything for the shipyard's workers and suppliers.

    However, the Canadian Coast Guard and the Royal Canadian Navy have urgent needs, and only Davie is able to build these ships here, in Canada, on schedule and on budget.

    The Liberals claim that the Davie shipyard is now part of the national shipbuilding strategy, but they are ignoring and flouting this strategy by having ferries built abroad.

    It is time for the Liberals to finally put words into action by offering a firm contract to Davie before Christmas and stop ignoring the largest shipyard in Canada and one we are very proud of.

    Mr. Speaker, a few days ago we lost Dr. Myler Wilkinson, former instructor of literature and peace studies at Selkirk College in Castlegar. Myler was an accomplished scholar, an award-winning author and an educator whose students often said that he was the best teacher they ever had.

    The West Kootenay has long had a strong vein of peace activism. There are the Doukhobors, whose motto is “toil and a peaceful life.” There were thousands of American opponents of the Vietnam War who found a haven in the Kootenays in the sixties and seventies.

    Myler and his wife, Linda, had the brilliant vision to build on this core of peace activism to form the Mir Centre for Peace studies at Selkirk. It has flourished since 1999, providing courses on transformative justice and peace studies.

    I am proud to represent a riding with such a brave and bold history of peace activism. We will all miss Myler, but we have the legacy of the Mir Centre to carry on his passion for peace on earth and goodwill to men.

    Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago yesterday, Quebec lost one of its greatest artists in Jean Duceppe.

    Jean Duceppe was an actor, comedian and host who left his mark on the theatre, film, television and radio worlds. He was known for his roles in My Uncle Antoine, Death of a Salesman, Charbonneau et le chef and The Plouffe Family, and was also known for the theatre company he founded and that still bears his name. Above all, Jean Duceppe was a staunch defender of Quebec.

    He loved his people and left a massive cultural legacy, and I was fortunate to call him my grandfather. Of all the lines he ever delivered, his most significant line came at the end of his life. These words are just as powerful now as they were when I was a child: “Quebec is our only country.”

    Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly two weeks since the Minister of Health and I exchanged a debate on the floor of the House about ending the gay blood ban. The government was reminded that it has been five years since the Liberals promised not to study and research the issue anymore, but to end the discrimination and stigma that gay men face in this country.

    The minister is aware of a safe, science-based solution that asks questions based on sexual behaviour and not sexual orientation. The Canadian Medical Association and the All Blood is Equal campaign are calling and backing this campaign. The time for talk and excuses is over. Gay men want to make a difference. We want to be treated the same way everybody else is treated. We can get this done.

    All I am asking is for the Liberals to keep the promise they made in the past two election campaigns. All parties are united in this. Let us make history and get this done, not in months or years from now, but now. Let us make the change that is long overdue for gay men in this country.

    Mr. Speaker, first, let me wish you, all my fellow parliamentarians and all those who work on the hill as happy a Christmas as possible. Just as importantly, I would like to wish my constituents in Brossard—Saint-Lambert a healthy, safe and loving holiday.

    The year is drawing to a close and we cannot wait to see it in the rear-view mirror. What immense challenges and real threats to our security and well-being 2020 has presented to us. I hope during this holiday season we will have the opportunity to find solace in the warmth of our families and take a moment to appreciate what we do have.

    This global pandemic has profoundly changed the way we live. No one has been immune from both the personal and social effects of the COVID-19 virus, but we have not been alone in the face of this new threat either. Many sacrifices have been made by everyone and we have been able to adapt our behaviour and routines. We have all had to face these challenges and we are slowly seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.

    Once again, I would like to wish everyone a Christmas as merry as the circumstances will allow, and like all, I look forward to better days in 2021.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tried to criticize us for asking questions on the CanSino deal. It turns out we were not the only ones with questions. The Globe and Mail is reporting that the government's own vaccine task force recommended against working with CanSino. The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that scientists were guiding the government's decision with respect to the vaccine.

    Why did the government make an exception for the Chinese pharmaceutical giant CanSino?

    Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning, we stepped up for Canadians. We reached out to procure potential vaccines from every possible source. We were not going to close any door that would maybe help Canadians. We ended up, therefore, with seven contracts signed with a diverse group of the top vaccine manufacturers in the world. We will continue to ensure we are doing everything we can, based on the best advice of experts, to get these vaccines to Canadians, so we can get through this pandemic once and for all.

    Mr. Speaker, we found out the first door the Prime Minister opened was with China. We also found out last week the government had been briefed on the security risks involving the Chinese company CanSino. The Prime Minister said that news report was making things up. Now we learn that the scientists agreed with the security experts on CanSino.

    If the security experts were against partnering with China, and the scientists were against partnering with China, why did the government partner with China?

    Mr. Speaker, we signed seven contracts with different vaccine producers from around the world in order to deliver vaccines reliably to Canadians. We looked for all partnerships, including one that was a successful partnership in developing an Ebola vaccine a number of years ago with CanSino. That did not pan out for a number of different reasons, but what we are left with is seven extraordinary contracts that have secured more doses per capita for Canadians, potentially, than any other country in the world.

    Mr. Speaker, we lost five months on the China deal that the Prime Minister said did not pan out. We did not prioritize domestic vaccine production. The government did not listen. Instead of pursuing a made-in-Canada solution, which was actually put forward by their own experts, the Liberals signed off on a partnership with CanSino. For that partnership they put millions into a facility, which they were told was not ready for vaccine production.

    Why did the Prime Minister favour a made-in-China solution instead of the made-in-Canada solution their own experts were demanding?

    Mr. Speaker, every step of the way we leaned on our experts, on the immunity task force and on the vaccination task force, to make recommendations on what we should do to ensure a solid supply of potential vaccines to Canadians. That advice actually led us to being in the enviable position of having more doses from more companies than just about any other country, and we are hopeful to be receiving our first vaccinations next week. This is what a government that listens to experts and works hard for Canadians has been able to deliver.

    Mr. Speaker, last week, the New York Times showed us just how easy it is to access child pornography on adult websites.

    At MindGeek, it is business as usual because this government is doing nothing. MindGeek is even headquartered in Montreal. When will the Liberal government launch an investigation to protect our kids?

     Mr. Speaker, we are actively working on new regulations that will require online platforms to remove all illegal content.

    That includes hate speech, depictions of the sexual exploitation of children and violent or extremist content. Under our approach, illegal content will be removed quickly, platforms will be monitored, and victims will have access to a rapid, transparent and independent process. We are working on this with our international partners and will be introducing these regulations as soon as possible.

    Mr. Speaker, in March, Canadian senators and MPs from all four political parties sent a letter to the Minister of Justice urging him to take steps to regulate MindGeek and other porn companies. We need rules for age verification and the removal of child pornography.

    When will the government protect our kids from sexual exploitation?

    Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are actively working on new regulations that require online platforms to remove all illegal content, including depictions of child sexual exploitation, child pornography and hate speech.

    We will be there to protect Canadians, and we are working very hard on measures we will be able to implement.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly say that the government will have our support for any measures to put an end to the sexual exploitation of children.

    On another note, the government could have had vaccines manufactured in Canada and could have had proper facilities. The government could have made this happen with licensing. The government could have made this happen without licensing by making arrangements after the fact. It could have synchronized the approval process. It did none of that.

    The government bought 250,000 doses in an attempt to sweep all of that under the rug. About 30,000 of those doses are for Quebec. That is not even enough to vaccinate all of the seniors in Sherbrooke.

    How much did the government pay for this spectacle?

    Mr. Speaker, we have been working with experts and scientists all along, and they have advised us on how to protect Canadians. Under their advice, we signed more contracts with a diverse group of vaccine manufacturers than any other country, and we have secured tens of millions of doses, the most doses per person than any other country.

    The vaccines could start arriving next week. Manufacturing is obviously starting out slow, but we will be able to vaccinate millions of Canadians in early 2021.

    Mr. Speaker, the delay proves that no matter what was done, it was not done properly, because there are still delays.

    The government has decided to resurrect a dangerous sense of security by saying that we now have a vaccine and we might be okay, but treating just 125,000 people in Canada is obviously inadequate.

    Given that fact, will the Prime Minister choose to help the real people on the ground, the ones who will have to manage this?

    Will he show up before the premiers of Canada and the Quebec premier on Thursday with health transfers that meet their demands?

    Mr. Speaker, we are working to deliver vaccines as quickly as possible. This depends largely on the production capacity of the companies supplying the vaccines.

    As for the premiers, I have been very pleased to work with them for the past several months to invest billions of dollars in the health care system and to help Canadians, partly with the support of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Red Cross. We will continue to ensure that the provinces have all the help they need from the federal government to get through this crisis. That is our priority, and I look forward to discussing it with—

    Order. The hon. member for Burnaby South.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians were encouraged by the announcement of a small quantity of Pfizer vaccines being delivered, but the vaccine has some problems. It is hard to transport and store. We are still concerned for our seniors. They need to have access to the vaccine. The Moderna vaccine could solve these challenges.

    What is the plan for the Moderna vaccine to protect our seniors?

    Mr. Speaker, we have worked with all the different vaccine companies to ensure that approval is done quickly and according to all the rules. That is why vaccines from four different companies are being assessed, including those from Pfizer and Moderna. We hope that in the case of Pfizer, this will be settled soon and that in the case of Moderna, it will be settled shortly.

    We know that it will take different types of vaccines to vaccinate everyone. That is why we are confident that we will be able to vaccinate three million Canadians in early 2021.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians were encouraged by the announcement of a small quantity of Pfizer vaccines being available in Canada, but the Pfizer vaccine presents some problems. It is difficult to store and difficult to transport, and it will not be available for people who live outside of major Canadian cities. I think of the outbreaks in indigenous communities, and in rural and remote communities, and the fact that they will not have access.

    The Moderna vaccine is promising in solving some of those problems, but we want to know what the plan is. What is the plan for the Moderna vaccine to provide access to people who live outside of major cities?

    Mr. Speaker, Pfizer is in the news right now because we are expecting to see the first deliveries of those vaccines as early as next week. We can start working on the delivery of those vaccines, which are logistically more complex.

    The Moderna vaccine is a somewhat more simple vaccine to transport and administer. That is why we are counting on the Moderna vaccine to be able to reach communities that are further off and northern Canadians. We are working very closely with Moderna to ensure that we get those doses to them as quickly as possible. As I said, we are expecting millions of people to be vaccinated, the most vulnerable—

    The hon. member for Carleton.

    Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has a big idea and it involves your bank account. She is very worried that Canadians are saving too much, even though those same savings are lent out to and invested in other job-creating businesses, so now she is looking for ideas on how the government can act to unlock those savings of Canadians.

    Does the government really believe that holding Canadians upside-down by the ankles and shaking their change loose is a stimulus plan?

    Mr. Speaker, yet again the Conservatives are misconstruing my words. It almost makes me wonder if they are doing it on purpose.

    The fact is there is nothing dystopian or even very complicated about the idea of a preloaded stimulus. We all know that local small businesses are the heart of our economy. We all also know that because of physical distancing, we are unable to patronize them now. That is why, as soon as it is safe for our economy to fully reopen, our government is looking for ways to encourage Canadians to support our local small businesses.

    Mr. Speaker, preloaded stimulus sounds like she wants to use Canadians' savings as her own preloaded credit card, but this is no surprise from a government that is running the biggest deficit in the G20 by far, even with the worst unemployment, other than Italy, and has among the higher rates of COVID mortality.

    Now the minister says she has no fiscal anchor. Instead, she has fiscal guardrails that will one day be attached to a fiscal anchor. Will the anchor at the bottom of the sea not pull those guardrails off the edge of the cliff?

    Mr. Speaker, the member opposite still seems to have some trouble understanding why it is good economics to support our small businesses and to encourage Canadians to do that. Therefore, let me quote someone he might find a little more simpatico, Ontario's Conservative premier Doug Ford.

    Here is what he has had to say: “Now more than ever, we need to support our own.... During #COVID19 business supported communities and healthcare workers, now it’s time to support them as consumers.” I could not agree more.

    Mr. Speaker, after days of being questioned by our party, the Liberals hastily tracked down a few vaccines for Canadians, but again, it is a fraction of what we need.

    We know that the Canadian Armed Forces will be involved in the vaccination effort. Many of these soldiers are from the Bagotville base. How will the government distribute vaccines to members of the Canadian Armed Forces, who fall under federal jurisdiction?

    Mr. Speaker, every step of the way we have been transparent with Canadians as we secured the most doses per capita, as we had the most diverse portfolio for Canadians and as we planned with provinces and territories to distribute vaccines so they could deliver on their immunization responsibilities. We will work with the federal organizations under our jurisdiction as well to ensure everyone has access to a vaccine.

    Mr. Speaker, things are going so well in Canada that several provinces are thinking of reviewing their lockdown measures.

    We will never have an economic recovery as long as people are not immunized against the virus. Canadians deserve certainty, clarity and competence from their government.

    When will we attain herd immunity, and how much longer will we be in lockdown?

    Mr. Speaker, it is important that all Canadians look forward to immunization and indeed plan to get immunized when those immunizations are proven to be safe in Canada.

    I want to thank the regulators at Health Canada who are working so hard to ensure that no matter what vaccine arrives, it will not be deployed until it is proven to be safe. One of the things that will happen is ensuring we do not share misinformation with Canadians about the risks of vaccination.

    Mr. Speaker, yesterday the justice minister said, “We expect law enforcement to enforce Canada’s laws", but a Canadian-based website has videos and images of people under 18 and children being exploited, abused and raped. Videos are re-uploaded and stay on the website for years and years.

    The minister said that the Liberals took gaps in the law seriously, so does the Minister for Public Safety think this is a so-called gap that needs to be fixed right now?

    Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member opposite that the sexual exploitation of children is among the most heinous of crimes. We have been working very hard to ensure we support law enforcement in every way with resources not just for the RCMP but for provincial and municipal police services as well to ensure they have the resources, tools and authorities they need to combat this most heinous crime. I have reached out to the RCMP and asked it to speak to the police of jurisdiction, in this case in the province of Quebec in the city of Montreal, to ensure they have all the help we can provide.

    Mr. Speaker, but this is still happening right now. Some private sector companies are taking steps to protect youth and victims of abuse. Three major payment processors say they will or have cut-off the website’s ability to monetize child abuse. Victims say the website is “making money off the worst moment in my life” and “became my trafficker”. Experts say there are more than 62 million pieces of child abuse online.

     How many more children will be harmed so heinously before those Liberals act and this is stopped?

    Mr. Speaker, as a father of three girls and a legislator, I find the content of these platforms profoundly inhumane. This is why our government has been working for months with experts, non-governmental organizations and foreign governments to bring forward legislation to the House at the beginning of 2021. This new regulation would require online platforms, not just websites, to eliminate illegal content, including hate speech, child sexual exploitation and violent or extremist content.

    Mr. Speaker, all the premiers will be meeting on Thursday to talk about health transfers, but we are seeing the real consequences of federal underfunding to our hospitals.

    The Leader of the Opposition is always heckling.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    There is too much noise in the chamber.

    Order.

    It is impossible to continue because there is far too much noise in the House.

    The hon. member for Joliette.

    Mr. Speaker, while all the first ministers are meeting on Thursday to talk about health transfers, we are seeing the very real consequences of federal underfunding in our hospitals.

    Because Ottawa is not paying its fair share, Quebec has to make tough choices. It has had to choose who it can provide care to because there is not enough staff to care for everyone. It has had to reduce operating room activities by 50%, and that may quickly drop to 30%.

    On Thursday, will the government finally announce a sustainable increase in health transfers?

    Mr. Speaker, we have supported Canadians.

    It is now time for the provinces to step up their efforts. We announced the $19-billion safe restart agreement with the provinces and territories to help our health care system deal with COVID-19. Now, the provinces need to invest that funding in doing more testing, contact tracing and data collection.

    Mr. Speaker, only 15¢, not $15, of every $100 the government spent during the pandemic was used to fund health care.

    Every day, we see the number of people who are falling victim to COVID-19. What we do not see is the number of people who do not have access to care, or who are not getting the surgery they need or their cancer treatments. We do not see the number of people whose quality of life is deteriorating while they are left on waiting lists because there is a shortage of health care workers.

    That is what happens when there is not enough funding for health care. One-time funding will not make it possible to hire health care workers. When will the Liberals wake up to what is happening and sustainably increase transfers?

    Mr. Speaker, throughout this pandemic, the federal government has been there for provinces and territories. In fact, $8 out of every $10 spent on responding to COVID-19 has been spent by the federal government.

    We have been there for provinces and territories, with direct transfers for things like testing, contact tracing and data management, but also to help with crisis, through the investment of the Canadian Red Cross going into nursing homes and support right on the ground to help bring down outbreaks.

    We will be there for provinces and territories. They need to spend the money to get ready for whatever comes next.

    Mr. Speaker, experts have testified about the devastating impact COVID-19 lockdowns have had on the mental health of Canadians.

    Alcohol and substance abuse is exploding, so is domestic violence, opioid deaths and suicide. Some have described these impacts of COVID lockdowns as epidemics in and of themselves.

    With Christmas fast approaching, a time when mental health is always an issue for many, and COVID lockdowns still in place, does the government feel it has done enough to prevent a second wave of suicides, domestic violence and overdoses over Christmas?

    Mr. Speaker, for a very long time, we have been focusing on mental health and substance use in the government. In fact, we did more as a government than the previous government ever did on the issue of substance use. I am proud of the work that we have done to treat people who use substances like human beings.

     Furthermore, we have invested, through COVID-19, by direct transfers to provinces and territories, by setting up wellness together, a federal support to overlay that transfer to provinces and territories. I would encourage all Canadians to visit wellnesstogether.ca to receive support and access to professionals to help them through this difficult time.

    Mr. Speaker, tens of thousands of Canadians have been separated from immediate family members for months due to COVID lockdowns and border closures, and there are four million Canadians who live alone.

    For some of these people, sitting alone through Christmas lockdown might exacerbate mental health issues. For Canadians who live alone and who are desperate to reunite with family during the holidays for the sake of their mental health, what advice is the federal government offering them on how to safely reunite and mitigate the mental health impacts of isolation while preventing the spread of COVID-19?

    Mr. Speaker, every step of the way we have asked Canadians to sacrifice tremendously and we know that. All across the world, in fact, people are sacrificing to contain COVID-19 and protect their loved ones.

    I do not underestimate that sacrifice. In fact, I thank Canadians for protecting each other, for protecting their communities. There is light at the end of the tunnel, though. We do have successful vaccines coming onboard.

    I will remind all Canadians that if they need help and they do not have access in their own particular jurisdiction, to please reach out to wellnesstogether.ca in both official languages and translation into 200 others.

    Mr. Speaker, during the 2015 and 2019 elections and as recently as this summer, the Prime Minister repeated his now broken promise to lift all drinking water advisories by March 2021. The government has used COVID as a cover, but that excuse does not hold up under scrutiny.

     The member for Kenora has been in contact with several indigenous community leaders in his riding who have been able to continue with infrastructure projects, including water, during the pandemic.

     Will the government admit that the clean drinking water promise to indigenous people was empty from the beginning?

    Mr. Speaker, we are not backing away from our commitment to ending all long-term drinking water advisories to first nations on reserve, but instead making a more profound commitment to the long term. In every community with a long-term water advisory there is a project team, an action plan and people dedicated to lifting it.

    Last week, we announced $1.5 billion to accelerate the access to clean water in the short and the long term as well as the stability necessary to ensure this occurs, not only by spring 2021 but after that.

    While we cannot underestimate the impact of COVID-19 on long-term drinking water timelines, we are—

    The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

    Mr. Speaker, last week, instead of owning up to his own failure to indigenous communities, the Prime Minister hid behind his minister and forced him to take responsibility for not meeting this March 2021 promise.

    When it was time for an election promise, the Prime Minister was more than glad to be in front of the camera, centre stage and to be in the spotlight. Now that this promise has been broken, he is nowhere to be found on this. That is not leadership.

    How can indigenous people trust the words of the Prime Minister and his government?

    Mr. Speaker, let me complete what I was about to say.

    While we cannot underestimate the impact of COVID-19 on long-term drinking water timelines, we are optimistic that by spring 2021 the number of communities under long-term drinking water advisories will be down to 12.

     We are committed to working with these communities in partnership for the long term. That is what the announcement last week of $1.5 billion to communities was about, and, yes, that is my responsibility to get it done as a minister of the Crown.

    Mr. Speaker, today's report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer shows that any scenario where the Trans Mountain pipeline would be profitable is a fantasy. Construction costs have soared to over $12 billion and any additional climate action, like the government's own net-zero legislation, will mean the project is not viable, yet the Prime Minister is determined to push ahead with this environmental and economic disaster.

    When will the Prime Minister stop selling this fantasy, throwing away billions of dollars, and instead make the investments we need to fight the climate crisis and create good, sustainable jobs?

    Mr. Speaker, there are many factors that go into determining whether a pipeline is necessary, such as contractual support, shipper choice and the nature of the markets that would receive the products delivered by the pipeline. TMX is a good project that has created more than 7,000 jobs for Canadians. There is a very strong business case for the project and construction will continue.

    Mr. Speaker, not only is the Liberal pipeline wasting taxpayer money, but the Liberal government also has a terrible record when it comes to the climate crisis.

    The climate change performance index makes the Liberals' failure clear. Canada is ranked 58th out of 61 countries. That is embarrassing and irresponsible.

    A petition signed by 110,000 Quebeckers was just submitted to the National Assembly to speak out against the GNL Québec project. Quebeckers are showing that they want a sustainable green transition.

    When will the Liberals take the climate emergency seriously and invest in electric transportation and renewable energy?

    Mr. Speaker, we have implemented a lot of measures to deal with the climate emergency under the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change.

    Of course, we know that we need to do more. In the coming weeks, we will do more with a new plan to fight climate change.

    Mr. Speaker, as we continue to see a record-breaking number of cases in regions across Canada, I know that families in my community of Scarborough—Agincourt are concerned about the safety of their loved ones of all ages. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that 249,000 doses of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine will be available in Canada before the end of the year.

    With hope on the horizon, what would the Minister of Health say to reassure families, not just in my riding but in communities across Canada?

    Mr. Speaker, of course, the arrival of vaccines in Canada is a very hopeful symbol that the light is, indeed, at the end of the tunnel. I know that families all across the country are worried about their loved ones. I thank them for the incredible efforts they are making to keep each other safe.

    Work is well under way with provinces and territories to make sure that we have a quick and efficient way to deploy these vaccines. I want to thank the provinces and territories for working at all levels to make sure that, when vaccines arrive in Canada, we can deploy them.

    Mr. Speaker, we all read or heard fairy tales when we were young. The latest one is called “Frank Baylis and His Liberal Friends”.