Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 44
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2021-06-15 10:12 [p.8428]
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present two petitions this morning.
The first petition is from many constituents concerned about the shortage of family doctors and how 92% of family doctors in this country are in urban areas and only 8% are found in more rural and remote areas, such as where I live. On a brief parenthetical personal note, I am going to have a knee replacement tomorrow, so I will not be in the House. My family doctor remains in Ottawa because I was not able to find one in Saanich—Gulf Islands 12 years ago when I moved here.
The petitioners ask for the federal government, recognizing that this is provincial jurisdiction, to develop a holistic, full-on effort, working with provinces and territories, to find a fair and holistic solution to the acute shortage of family doctors in much of Canada.
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-233, which is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to criminalize abortion and attack our reproductive rights. I want to acknowledge the critical work of so many advocates of Abortion Rights Coalition, who have made clear that Bill C-233 is not actually about protecting girls and women, or supporting vulnerable women, but rather, a veiled attempt to criminalize abortion in our country.
It is a bill that opens the door to racism, misogyny and abuse. Today, I acknowledge that, as I stand again in this House, in support of a woman's fundamental right to choose, that we stand on the shoulders of giants, giants like the women of the abortion caravan, trailblazers like Henry Morgentaler; feminist leaders like Judy Rebick, Carolyn Eagen, Joyce Arthur; the women of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, and many more.
I think of the women and two-spirited activists who created the Native Youth Sexual Health Network and the fierce feminist activists of the Radical Handmaids.
I think of the women in my own community and in our own region who fight to make sure that women and transgender people have access to reproductive rights.
Let us get to the core of the issue. This bill is also a key part of the Conservative Party of Canada's not-so-hidden agenda. Its members tell us they have rebranded. They tell us they are pro-choice. They tell us they are pro-LGBTQ rights. They slap an emoji on it, a hashtag on it, and they are good to go. Then its members put forward bills like this one. It is not by accident and it is also not the first time.
Almost 10 years ago, in 2012, and feminist activists will remember, Motions Nos. 312 and 408 were put forward by Conservative members at that time that again, were backdoor attempts to criminalize abortion in Canada. I spoke to those motions as a member of Parliament almost 10 years ago. These motions, yes, were overwhelmingly opposed, but they were not meant to pass. They were meant to send a signal at that time, like they are today, that the Conservative Party also holds the belief that women and some transgender people should not have the choice to do what they want with their bodies. These motions were meant to send a signal that the state ought to have the final say and criminalize those who choose abortion. These motions stoke the fire of possibility of a reactionary, patriarchal view of our world where women are subservient.
If the Conservatives truly cared about gender equality and the rights of girls and women so much, what else could they do to spend their time fighting for us? My answer is: so much more. First of all, they could start by recognizing that indigenous women in this country have been and continue to be subjected to genocide. They could support the findings of the historic National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, an inquiry that they opposed and pour their energy into action on its recommendations, but instead, the Conservatives are not doing that.
It is May 2021. We are a year and some into a global pandemic. Women have borne the brunt of care work in this pandemic, in our care homes, hospitals, homes and schools as essential workers. The Conservatives could fight for them for paid sick days; for desperately needed protection; for targeted shutdowns of dangerous workplaces; for immigration status for women migrant workers and all migrant workers, but the Conservatives are not doing that. They could speak up for the thousands of Canadian women who have lost their jobs, had to leave their work, had to scale back their employment because of a lack of child care, a lack of elder care; a lack of supports. They could speak up of the she-session and the clear recognition that women in Canada have lost significant ground during this crisis. They could fight for them, for universal child care, for cancelling student debt, for free education, for affordable housing; for publicly owned compassionate models of care that value the women who need that care and the women who provide it, but the Conservatives are not doing that either. Instead, we have Bill C-233 that will set the clock back on our reproductive rights.
I am here to say that Canadian women and transgender people are not having it. Many, including in my own province, have been on the front lines of fighting for greater access to abortion, particularly the availability of Mifegymiso. Thanks to the immense public pressure from advocates of the grassroots, Mifegymiso became universally covered by the provincial government here in Manitoba.
However, the struggle continues. Many women and some transgender people still do not have access to medical or surgical abortions in real terms when they need them. Here I also want to highlight the hypocrisy of the Liberals, who aim to score points on being pro-choice but do next to nothing to make abortion services available to women across our country, particularly in northern and rural areas.
Many are fighting back. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Emily Pruder, an abortion doula and advocate for reproductive justice here in our north, who said, “Northern and rural people already face incredible barriers just to access abortion. People are often forced to travel long distances, pay for travel out of pocket and wait weeks before they can have an abortion. We don't need more barriers. This paternalistic bill is an attack on reproductive justice.”
The struggle is ongoing: for access to abortion, for control over our own bodies, for reproductive justice, for gender justice, for liberation. The struggle is not over. Women in the United States are taking on struggles in defence of reproductive rights in their home states and across their country. Women around the world, from Ireland to Argentina, have made it clear: our bodies, our choice.
Bills like Bill C-233 are not fooling women across Canada. The not-so-veiled agenda of the Conservative Party of Canada is on full display.
It is 2021. Women deserve leadership, leadership that will fight to make our lives better. Bill C-233 not only would not do that, but it would make our lives worse. That leadership starts with the fundamental respect of our right to control our own bodies, to allow us to make the choices that we know are best for who we are: when we want to get pregnant, whether we want to have kids and when we want an abortion.
Today I stand, along with so many women and so many people across our country, including my colleagues in the NDP, to state our clear and unequivocal opposition to Bill C-233, which is nothing but a not-so-veiled attack on a woman's fundamental right to choose.
View Anita Vandenbeld Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Anita Vandenbeld Profile
2021-05-28 14:19 [p.7585]
Madam Speaker, I am here today to speak to private member's bill, Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code, sex-selective abortion, at second reading.
I really wish I did not have to do this. I am, quite frankly, disappointed that I have to spend time in the year 2021 on the abortion debate in Canada, when a woman's right to choose has been law for over 30 years. It really is unfortunate that members of Parliament are still seeking to restrict that right.
The sponsor claims that this bill is to address sex-based discrimination. To achieve that goal, this bill would create a new Criminal Code offence prohibiting doctors from performing an abortion when they know it is being sought solely on the grounds of the genetic sex of the fetus.
While I note that the offence is ostensibly aimed at doctors, I must point out that it would also criminalize women as parties to the offence. Make no mistake, Bill C-233 will limit a woman's right to choose by doing this. Criminalizing a woman for seeking an abortion is a violation of the fundamental rights of women in Canada, and it is just plain wrong.
I would like to speak to what we know about the impact of using criminal law to regulate abortion. We need not look further than Canada's own legal history of abortion regulation and its impact on Canadian women. That history reflects what the international evidence tells us. Criminal restrictions on abortion result in women having less access to them, and having less access negatively impacts women's equality rights.
Let us take a look at how we got to where we are today. Currently, no criminal offences apply to abortion, and the provinces and territories are responsible for providing safe abortion services to Canadian women. However, we must not forget that, until 1969, abortion was absolutely prohibited in Canada. That meant that very few, if any, safe options were available to women. Women were forced to either bring an unwanted pregnancy to term or access unsafe and unregulated methods such as back alley abortions, which often led to infection and death.
Women who sought abortions also risked criminal sanctions, and doctors who provided safe abortions risked punishment. Many of us will remember Dr. Morgentaler. He was incarcerated for saving women's lives. He risked his own safety to champion women's rights and for that he was awarded the Order of Canada in 2008.
I cannot emphasize enough how much we do not want to return to that era. I am proud to live in a country where women have safe access to abortion and do not need to worry about criminal reprisals. Again, I am very disappointed to be here today having to fight against an attempt to limit these hard-earned and important rights.
The evidence before the court in the Morgentaler case highlighted the medical risks and psychological trauma restricting access to abortion caused women seeking abortion services in Canada, and the importance of affording women autonomy to make decisions about their own bodies. The provisions were found to violate women's security of the person rights.
This is because, and I quote Justice Bertha Wilson, the first woman justice of the Supreme Court, who said that those provisions asserted that, “the woman's capacity to reproduce is to be subject, not to her own control, but to that of the state.”
The court found the violation of women's rights by limiting access to abortion to be completely unacceptable, and so do I. The court has been very clear on this front, and I think that a court could also find this legislation unconstitutional for the same reasons, should it pass.
The 1969 provisions remained in the Criminal Code, but were unenforceable until they were repealed in 2019 by our government in the former Bill C-75. Other related abortion offences were repealed by our government in 2018 in former Bill C-51. Even though they were inoperable, I am proud that our government took the important step to remove these discriminatory provisions.
It took more than 100 years to remove abortion-related criminal offences from our Criminal Code, which is, frankly, a shameful mark. However, again, I am quite proud to be part of the government that finally removed them from the books, and I have no intention of supporting any attempt to add them back.
Consistent with the Canadian experience, international research has shown that using the criminal law to regulate any aspect of abortion results in barriers to accessing abortion services, which contributes to gender inequality. For example, international research indicates that laws restricting the use of technology for sex selection purposes, as well as sex-selective abortions, are likely to have harmful impacts on women. These impacts include women seeking unsafe procedures that fall outside regulations, protocols and monitoring.
I fail to see how criminalizing women who choose sex-selection abortion, perhaps because of familial pressure to do so, protects them, or other women for that matter, from discrimination. Rather, a criminal law response is more likely to detract from women's equality rights by creating barriers to accessing abortion.
The United Nations recommends combatting this form of discrimination by addressing the root causes of gender inequality. This includes focusing on advancing access to education, health services and economic resources for women and girls. I am pleased to note that our government has made significant investments to advance gender equality, guided by women and the framework for assessing gender equality results, introduced in budget 2018.
Criminalizing women seeking abortion is not the solution to this problem and would be a massive step backwards for this country. I cannot emphasize enough how disappointed I am to see that there is yet another attempt in this bill to limit a woman's right to choose.
In Canada, I am proud to say that abortion is treated like the medical service that it is and falls within the responsibility of the provincial and territorial health sector. All medical procedures are subject to medical professional standards.
Ultimately, what could happen if we were to enact an offence such as this? Perhaps doctors would refuse to provide abortion services out of fear of criminalization, because they believe their patient may be choosing abortion for the wrong reasons. Perhaps a woman who needs access to an abortion would be afraid to seek it out in case she is reported and charged for having done so. Perhaps women from certain communities would be denied access to abortion based on discriminatory views about their reason for seeking it. In short, I fear that this bill could undo decades of arduous work to ensure that women never face these barriers again.
I was really disappointed to see the Leader of the Opposition indicate that his caucus will be allowed a free vote on such a fundamental issue as protecting women's right to choose.
I hope that members of the Conservative Party who are currently heckling me will recognize, as all other members of this House do, how important it is to protect equality rights for women in Canada and join me and the government in voting against this proposed legislation.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, I am incredibly pleased to be here today to speak on Bill C-237, an act to establish a national framework for diabetes.
This is an incredibly important private member's bill, because it addresses something that really concerns me: The reality that people with diabetes across Canada are being treated very differently depending on what province or territory they live in. I thank the member for bringing this bill forward and for her passion on this very important issue. I am very happy to be here to discuss why it is important.
A couple of years ago, Juvenile Diabetes spokespersons came to have a conversation with me. I met with two teenagers, one from Alberta and one from British Columbia. As members in the House, we all have moments where we hear stories and think, “This is wrong,” and that we have do something to make it better. That day, I learned that people living with diabetes could have something inserted in their arms that would allow them to scan their blood sugar levels very quickly with their phones. There was no more need for pricking fingers or carrying around those tools: They could quickly scan to see how things were going and address them as needed. The problem is that in one teen's province, there is a monthly fee for this service, and in the other teen's province, there is no fee at all.
It really broke my heart when I heard from the mother of the teen who was in the province where a monthly fee was required. She and her husband had been doing really well paying that monthly fee, until her husband got hurt on the job and was off work. Their income went down significantly. The mother told me that one of the hardest choices they had to make was to acknowledge that they could no longer afford the monthly fee, which meant that their daughter had to have the pump removed and move forward.
No parent ever wants to do that. It completely broke my heart. I do not think any parent in the country would be happy if they had to make a decision between the health and well-being of their child and feeding them. I recognize that across Canada, many parents have children who have health issues. They really struggle to afford, or cannot afford, the basic medication they need to make sure that their children are well cared for, and this is one example. We need a better strategy. It is important to point out that a national pharmacare program would address this issue and ensure that parents would not be making choices, such as these parents had to, between their children's health and well-being and feeding them and keeping a roof over their heads.
The facts are very clear. Individuals with diabetes cannot regulate their blood sugar properly. Diabetes causes many physical health issues, and is a cause of debt for more than 7,000 Canadians every year. Diabetes also impacts the mental health of people who have diabetes, as well as their families. It is time for Canada to take this seriously, and the bill before us is one step towards doing so.
This bill asks the government to bring together all provinces, territories, indigenous leaders and stakeholder groups to create a plan to support those living with diabetes more holistically. Diabetes is a chronic disease, and it is so important that the federal government do more to support Canadians living with diabetes, particularly those who incur significant out-of-pocket costs because of it. Too many Canadians living with diabetes are unable to afford the medications, devices and supplies they need. When medication and supplies are unaffordable it leads to bigger health issues, which can lead to an early death. That is just not acceptable in a country as wealthy as ours. Families and loved ones feel this reality, and it is really scary for them to always worry about what they will do if they cannot afford what those people need.
Not too long ago, I received a message from a constituent who had just been diagnosed with diabetes, and she was really scared. She was not sure how she would afford the medication. When dealing with a chronic illness, the last thing the body needs is the stress of wondering, “Can I afford the most basic supplies and medication that I need?” We know that this is true. A recent report from the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions found that 57% of Canadians with diabetes reported failing to adhere to their prescribed therapies due to affordability issues related to their medications, devices and supplies.
Fifty-seven per cent is more than half of Canadians who have this chronic disease. This is important because research indicates that when a chronic illness is managed, the expense is lower and the health of the individual increases. Preventative supports matter. They allow people to care of themselves and prevent repetitive visits to the emergency room caused by a lack of access to medications, devices and supplies.
Again, we have to think about what this means in Canada. It is one of the most wealthiest countries in the world and these realities exist because people cannot afford their medication.
This is why Canada's New Democrats recognize that there is an urgent need to for universal, comprehensive and public pharmacare, a plan to ensure that all Canadians have access to the medications they need when they need them, that we do not have people like my constituents staying up half the night wondering how they will afford this new expense in their lives. This must include coverage for diabetes devices and supplies, such as test strips, syringes, insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors.
Sadly, we have seen the reality that the Liberals and the Conservative governments, one after another, continue to deny this measure that would create a more affordable and a fair system to care for the well-being of people across Canada. It would save significant money by lessening emergency health care costs, which are extremely high and terrible for the health of people who cannot afford their medication. Universal health care would also support businesses that have multiple challenges when they have a team member or a loved one who has health issues. In some cases, even with health insurance people cannot afford the cost of their medication.
Just weeks ago we heard the government make promises, but when it actually had an opportunity to support pharmacare, it said no. How many times do Canadians have to wait and ask again for this human rights-based approach?
I will be supporting this bill. It is a step that will at least support people living with diabetes. I hope the government will support it as well. The concerning reality is that so many families that apply for the disability tax credit when they have children who are born with diabetes lose it when those children come into adulthood. The Government of Canada has rejected these applicants in the past. When is in place, I hope it stops denying this small tax credit. Most important, ensuring that people have access to the RRSPs they invested in for many years is absolutely key for me.
There is a lot of injustice for people living with chronic illness. I hope the bill will at least help one portion of the community. However, I want to remind everyone in the House that only pharmacare will make it a more fair system for everyone in the country.
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-233.
Let me start by saying that our government condemns all forms of gender-based violence. We have taken strong legislative action and made investments to protect women and girls since we took office, from improving judicial education to prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression, investing in an ambitious gender-based violence strategy and, yes, approving the use of Mifegymiso in Canada.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have provided an additional $100 million in funding to organizations across the country to support their efforts to end gender-based violence. In my community, $170,000 of that funding has gone directly to organizations that are dedicated to combatting gender-based violence.
There is no evidence to support the need for Bill C-233. This is a bill searching for a problem that does not exist. Canada is not seeing a disproportionate number of male versus female births. The sex ratio at birth for Canada is consistent with the global average. In fact, I believe this bill introduces considerable risk in stigmatizing racialized communities, which already experience disproportionate police surveillance, over-criminalization, and violence and discrimination at the hands of public officials.
Abortion providers and counsellors are trained to ensure that each person is comfortable and certain about their decision and that they are not having an abortion under pressure from anyone. Abortion is health care, and the patients' health and life need to be the primary concern for health care providers; that means ensuring that they can have access to a safe abortion.
We must assess the bill's ability to achieve its intended objective in light of the evidence showing that ensuring access to abortion services advances gender equality. Evidence shows that restricting such access, in particular through criminal law, has a detrimental and negative impact on equality rights. I am concerned that this bill may serve to exacerbate sex-based discrimination, not combat it.
This is not the first time the Conservative Party has attempted to legislate women's bodies. The anti-choice movement has co-opted the language of human rights and feminism to try to limit access to abortion.
The United Nations has issued reports recommending against criminalizing any aspect of abortion, including sex-selective abortion, since research shows that doing so creates barriers to accessing abortion services, which negatively affects women's equality. International agencies have made strong statements that women's right to make decisions about their own bodies is at the very core of the fundamental right to equality, and I agree.
Abortion is a medical decision made between a woman and her doctor. There are already safeguards in place within the medical community surrounding abortion. Legislators are not doctors and have no business interfering with the doctor-patient relationship. I firmly believe that legislators have no place in the uterus of women across our country.
There are obviously those in the Conservative Party who do not feel that way, including the sponsor of this bill, who has said she believes that abortion should never be performed, under any circumstances. If the hon. member truly is concerned about gender-based violence and discrimination, I would ask whether she supports preventative measures that are far more effective at reducing abortions, including comprehensive sex education, consent-based awareness-raising activities and campaigns, free and accessible birth control, and laws and policies that promote gender equality and actually address gender-based discrimination, including gender parity in all decision-making spaces, pay equity, paid parental and other forms of leave, and comprehensive social support services, including affordable housing, universal pharmacare and national child care. The list goes on.
If we want to tackle stereotypes that value men over women, the answer is not criminalizing women's bodies. The answer is getting to the roots of misogyny and sexism and doing the hard work, as a government and society, that we need to do to ensure that women's lives are valued. We need to ensure that young women who want birth control can access it without fear of recrimination. We need to ensure that we support the work that local women's organizations like SAVIS and Halton Women's Place are doing to cultivate male allyship, and we need to call out all people, regardless of gender, who think it is their right to control what a woman does with her body.
In 1988, in the Supreme Court of Canada's well-known Morgentaler decision, restrictions on abortion were found to violate women's section 7 security of the person rights. Since then, it has remained a medical decision, as it should be.
This bill is one more example of the rising power of the anti-choice movement across our country. Here in my riding, I have worked with the Sexual Assault and Violence Intervention Services to raise awareness about how hard it is for women in my region to access abortion services. One cannot get an abortion in Halton unless it is an emergency. Over half a million people live in Halton Region. We are one of the safest and wealthiest communities in the country, and one out of five women in my region who choose to have an abortion in their lifetime will have to go outside the region to seek essential health care.
Halton Region is the best-case worst-case scenario. We sit between Toronto and Hamilton and are part of the most densely populated area of the country. Members should think about the barriers that exist for women who live in rural or remote areas or women who do not speak English or French. Members should think about the barriers that exist for women who cannot pay for the $100 taxi ride from Oakville to Hamilton. Now members should think about how these barriers are amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. Travel between provinces is limited, sometimes outright banned, and clinics have closed. These barriers do not make our communities safer; they put women in danger and they act to restrict choice.
The rise of the anti-choice movement has also led to dangerous online misinformation campaigns sponsored by Alliance for Life Ontario, spreading dangerous falsehoods about medical abortion. This is part of a larger ideological initiative that seeks to misinform individuals and restrict their reproductive rights.
What is medical abortion, and why does the anti-choice movement want to convince Canadian women that it is unsafe and can be reversed? To begin with, medical abortions have been practised all over the world for more than 30 years. Despite three decades of evidence that proves they are safe and effective, they were only made available in Canada since 2017 under our Liberal government.
There are two drugs that are used for a medical abortion, sold together in a product called Mifegymiso. Mifegymiso is prescribed by a doctor, and it can only be given within the first nine weeks of pregnancy. A woman takes one tablet, and then 24 to 48 hours later the subsequent tablets, and that is it. Medical abortions are safe and effective, and the vast majority of abortions in Canada, about 90%, happen very early in a pregnancy, before the sex of the fetus is even known, I might add.
The campaign is targeting women who are seeking an abortion with wrongful claims that a medical abortion can be reversed mid-procedure, in the 24 to 48 hours after the first tablet. Advocates for the abortion pill reversal frequently cite research from Dr. George Delgado, a medical adviser for the Abortion Pill Rescue Network and medical director of Culture of Life Family Services in San Diego, a self-professed provider of Christ-centred medical care. This research has been condemned by the medical community, and compelling evidence exists that abortion pill reversal is ineffective and potentially dangerous. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada has released a statement condemning the practice, as has the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Simply put, denying access to health services that only women require, including abortion, is a form of gender-based violence. The UN has recognized this, our Supreme Court has recognized this, and I am confident that a majority of the hon. members in this place will recognize this.
I call on all members of this House to call out the anti-choice movement and recognize this bill for what it is, a bill that is trying to find a problem that simply does not exist in Canada, and I ask all members to join me in voting against this bill.
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
NDP (ON)
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
2021-04-14 18:20 [p.5593]
Madam Speaker, women in Canada and around the world have fought long and hard for the right to control what they do with their own bodies. Sadly, many women still do not have this right or they have actively lost it. In some cases, particularly here in Canada, the right to choose is only available in theory. The practice of this right is hindered by the fact that consecutive governments have not ensured that all women have the same rights under the Canada Health Act or the charter.
To my utter dismay, here we are again. This private member's bill, Bill C-233, is nothing short of a direct attack on women. Despite all the rhetoric claiming to be in defence of women's equality and despite the Conservative leader's assurances that his party will not reopen the abortion debate in Canada, we are debating a bill that does just that.
I am not surprised. He, like so many former leaders of the Conservative Party, has allowed his members to repeatedly try to undermine women's rights. Since 2006, members of the Conservative caucus have tried seven times to introduce anti-choice laws. In fact, this is not even the first time the member for Yorkton—Melville has tried to challenge women's rights under the charter, and like the other anti-choice private members' bills introduced by Conservative Party members, Bill C-233 is a Trojan Horse.
I am proud to say that women must retain their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and as a New Democrat in the House and as a woman who has the privilege to speak here tonight, I will never vote for a bill that is quite literally a slap in the face to women who have fought long and hard for the right to control their own bodies.
Dangerously, the argument that is being used within the bill is couched in language around gender equality, but I cannot state emphatically enough that Bill C-233 does nothing to address gender equality. Let me repeat that: Bill C-233 does nothing to address gender equality. It is a step toward regulating and eroding access to abortion.
When abortions are illegal, women do not stop having them. They only take more risks to access the services they need, and these risks can have deadly consequences. Before anti-choice laws in Canada were struck down, there were over 35,000 illegal abortions taking place every year. Thousands of women died because they were not given a choice. They were desperate and submitted themselves to clandestine procedures.
Our Supreme Court struck down the abortion law in 1988 because it violated a woman's right to bodily security. Recriminalizing abortion in any way would be a violation of the charter rights that cis women and transgender people have to life, liberty and conscience.
If we look at examples from India and Nepal, we see that laws against sex-selective abortion do not work, and because of these laws many women avoid the health care system. They risk their health and lives by resorting to unsafe abortions.
A 2019 study found that sex-selective abortion bans in South Korea, China and India are difficult to implement and have limited impact. They reduce access to safe abortion services and negatively affect the life chances of women and girls. By contrast, other studies have shown that policies that include mass messaging and measures to increase gender equality show a quick impact in reducing people's preference for having sons and in increasing parental investments in girls.
The sex-selective abortion of female fetuses is a symptom, not the problem itself. The root issue here is misogyny. A law banning sex-selective abortion only sends the problem underground. The answer lies in raising the status of girls and women over the long term.
In the promotion and protection of women's rights and gender equality, Canada must be a world leader. We must commit to the view that gender equality is not only a human right, but also an essential component of sustainable development, social justice, peace and security. These goals can only be achieved if women are able to participate as equal partners, decision-makers and beneficiaries of the sustainable development of their societies.
However, how can Canada be considered a world leader in women's rights when we have members of Parliament suggesting that we revert to the days of gender inequality through the restriction of abortion? How can Canada be considered a world leader when the government refuses to enforce the Canada Health Act, which requires provinces to fund equal access?
In 1988, abortion was decriminalized, but that does not mean everyone in Canada has access. Last year, Action Canada published “Access at a Glance: Abortion Services in Canada”. This overview of abortion care in Canada shows huge gaps in what care is available and where. There are significant disparities between rural and urban access to abortion. In some provinces, like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, abortion providers are only in urban centres, despite the fact that 35% to 40% of the population is living in rural or remote communities.
Hundreds of people are forced to travel out of their communities to access abortion and must pay for travel expenses out of pocket. Travelling to another city for a procedure can mean having to take time off work, planning and paying for child care or elder care. Some people cannot afford to pay for these expenses.
Access to health services should not depend on one's postal code or income. Unlike any other province or territory, New Brunswick illegally refuses to pay for abortion services outside of hospital settings. This means that abortions provided in clinics are not funded by the government. This is a human rights violation and contravenes the Canada Health Act.
For decades, people across New Brunswick and Canada have been advocating for the government to strike down this discriminatory regulation, yet successive governments and the so-called feminist Liberal government continue to ignore this call, and persist in maintaining an unfair, illegal policy that seriously impacts abortion access in New Brunswick.
Everyone has the equal right to the best quality health care, regardless of race, age, class, immigration status, gender expression, sexuality and ability, but abortion care is impacted by discrimination and bigotry, both systemic and as a result of individual prejudice on the part of service providers. Racism, xenophobia, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism and ageism in Canada are all direct and intersecting barriers to accessing abortion.
If the member introducing Bill C-233 was truly interested in strengthening gender equality, this bill could have ensured everyone's right to access health services. It could propose solutions to fight against racism and poverty and homelessness or combat homophobia and transphobia. It could propose operational-based funding for women's organizations, ensure permanent funding for shelters in Canada, put forward a universal early learning and child care bill, introduce a guaranteed basic livable income, ensure free access to birth control or Mifegymiso, create a national action plan against gender-based violence, or implement just one of the 231 calls for justice from the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Inquiry.
If the member for Yorkton—Melville was truly dedicated to advancing gender equality, she could have drafted a bill that actually addresses the social, economic or political inequities women experience as part of their daily lives, inequities exacerbated by past and current governments.
Tragically, this bill does nothing to implement the long-term solutions that would reduce the inequality between men and women. In May 2020, Canada celebrated the 50th anniversary of the abortion caravan, the convoy of activists, advocates and brave women who travelled from Vancouver to Ottawa to protest the criminalization of abortion in 1970.
Canadian women fought long and hard for the right to safe, legal abortions. Women have been forced to put their private lives under scrutiny in the courts and in the fight for the right to choose. I would like to thank all the brave women, organizations and abortion providers who fought for our right to choose.
I urge all members of this House to recognize this bill for what it is, an underhanded attack on women's choice. I urge all members to vote against it. If we are to sincerely achieve true gender equality, we will not tolerate the sham that has been perpetuated against women of this country.
Instead of attacking health services and access, we need to address the reasons why women are undervalued, underpaid and underserved. We need a government that would champion programs and policies that ensure women's contributions to society, the economy and leadership in this country are respected and encouraged. Access to safe, legal abortions is integral to these rights.
New Democrats, it is safe to say, do not support this bill. We will actively fight against any motion or future bill that would threaten a woman's right to choose.
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
Mr. Speaker, Doreen Saunders, an elder from York Factory First Nation, died a preventable death last week because of medical neglect by the federal government. York Factory has not had the number of nurses promised or a doctor in months. Doreen Saunders is not alone. York Factory is not alone.
There are no excuses. What will the government do to make sure first nations are getting the medical personnel they have been promised and need? What will the government do to achieve justice for Doreen Saunders and her family, for York Factory and for all first nations?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Canada, I offer my sincere condolences on this tragic passing. We know that first nations face a terrible health crisis, particularly during this pandemic. We know that coming out of COVID we must invest in health infrastructures in communities. We must invest in housing as a health crisis.
We know that this is the challenge. We know that this inequity exists and persists and have made communities more vulnerable. There are many examples of this across Canada, and it is entirely unacceptable, but this government has made massive investments in bridging that infrastructure gap and we will continue to do so.
View Raquel Dancho Profile
CPC (MB)
View Raquel Dancho Profile
2021-03-08 17:20 [p.4689]
Madam Speaker, today the House of Commons is debating Bill C-24. There are two key components of the legislation.
First, the legislation would increase the maximum number of weeks available to workers through EI up to a maximum of 50 weeks for claims that are established between September 27, 2020, and September 25, 2021. This is up from 26 weeks, which was established in legislation passed by the House earlier in the fall. The legislation is essentially an extension of pandemic emergency support benefits for Canadians because there are no jobs available to them.
Second, the legislation would fix the Liberal-caused loophole in the Canada recovery sickness benefit for international leisure travellers. In the previous legislation from this past fall, Canadians could claim this benefit for their quarantine weeks when they returned from vacation, which does not seem very ethical. The official opposition brought attention to this issue back in December and January and called for an immediate change. Here we are, in the third month of 2021, and we are finally debating the needed changes to the September 2020 legislation.
The Conservatives support getting help to Canadians in need, whose jobs have been eliminated as a result of government-mandated restrictions and closures in response to the pandemic. However, we are disappointed that once again the Liberal response to the pandemic in this bill and in the minister's speech resoundingly fail to put forward a worker-led, jobs-first economic recovery plan for a post-pandemic Canada. It really would have been timely to do so today, given that this week marks the one-year anniversary since the World Health Organization declared a worldwide pandemic, lockdowns began in Canada and life changed dramatically for all of us.
Since that time, 12 very long months ago, the statistics of unemployment have been staggering. Since the end of CERB in September and the implementation of the new EI and the CRB, over three million Canadians have accessed the EI supports, with over 2.3 million Canadians currently receiving EI benefits as of mid-February. Over one million Canadians have been on the CRB since the end of September. Therefore, over three million Canadians remain out of work. It is very important to recognize that there is a sunset clause in these direct payments to Canadians, and that is September 25, which is about seven months from now.
My questions are these. What comes after that? Is the Liberal government suggesting that Canadians will no longer require government supports by the end of September? Will there be a transition period to help Canadians get back to work or is the government planning to cut off Canadians and their families come September, without providing a pathway or support to help them re-enter the workforce? Has the government examined what the impact to wages and the job market will be when three million Canadians attempt to re-enter the labour market? A lot of questions have not been answered in the minister's speech or in the legislation.
The end of September for these programs also coincides with the Liberal promise to vaccinate everyone who wants a one by the end of September. Here is the problem. Even if we do achieve that vaccination goal by the end of September, we know that jobs will not miraculously return overnight. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has said that between 71,000 and 220,000 small businesses will close permanently, which will eliminate between one million and three million jobs from the Canadian job market.
In 2020, 58,000 small businesses officially closed and in the end, whenever that will be, CFIB suspects that one out of six Canadian businesses, that is small, medium and large businesses, will close, with an estimated one in five to close in Alberta. For Canadians who are not sure what that means, they should walk down the street, look at six businesses and eliminate one of them, and keep doing that as they continue to walk down the street. That would be truly devastating for the economy and for Canada.
In Canada, the data has been clear that there are very uneven impacts of the pandemic. Men are rejoining the workforce in greater numbers as women are leaving the labour market altogether. In fact, labour force participation for women has been set back 30 years. It has not been this bad for women since before I was born.
Regarding newcomers, people may remember that in the fall the Liberals triumphantly said that they would bring in over 401,000 new permanent residents in Canada this year, which is more immigrants into Canada than any single year in our history. They argued it would help our economic recovery, which it might. However, numbers just released saw that Canada lost 4% of its permanent residents last year. They just packed up and left Canada, possibly for good, because there were no opportunities here for them. Canadians should know that in a regular year, our permanent residents grow by 3%. Therefore, this is really a 7% setback.
Immigrants are giving up on the Canadian dream. Women and young people have fewer and fewer opportunities. It would seem that Canada is no longer a place for small business entrepreneurship. It really does not take an economist to realize that it will likely take years, perhaps a decade or more, before new businesses are created to replace the ones we have lost.
After a year, the government's only plan thus far is to further extend emergency supports. Therefore, my issue with Bill C-24 is that it is not a jobs recovery plan. It is yet another Band-Aid.
The Prime Minister recently promised in the House of Commons that the government would bring back opportunities, but he has failed to tell Canadians exactly how he will do that and, in particular, how he will do that given that the top developed nations in the world are racing to be some of the first to recover and to relaunch their economies. Fierce world economic competition is imminent.
The U.S. has pledged to fully vaccinate its population by the end of May. The United Kingdom has said that it would be fully reopened by June 21 because of its successful vaccine rollout strategies. It has made that commitment to its people. Meanwhile, in Canada, our vaccine rollout has been hovering around 50th in the world and, as a result, we will be slower to recover. We are in danger of being locked out and left behind of the international COVID-19 economic recovery and the jobs to be found therein.
More than that, there is the very odd fact that Canada has spent more per capita than any other G7 country, yet has achieved the worst unemployment outcomes as well as the worst vaccine rollout, as I have said, and also suffers from the lowest business confidence right now. We are spending more and getting less, which really seems to be the Canadian Liberal way these days. It does not bode well for the future. Nor does it provide Canadians with confidence that the Prime Minister and his Liberal government have the competency to really turn the ship around.
I would like to touch on something beyond the job losses and the economic devastation, because the stakes really are very high that we get this right.
Following a year of isolation due to the lockdown and restrictions, we know that the mental health of Canadians has been deeply impacted. People are deeply suffering. I speak to my constituents on a regular basis and people are really beginning to hurt. It is palpable in my community as I am sure it is for all members of Parliament in their communities. Being kept inside away from the people and activities we love is really difficult for any amount of time let alone 12 months.
What I find most frustrating is that the Liberal government has not offered a solution or strategy to Canadians on how we get out of this. We are all praying for the vaccines to be delivered as soon as possible, but the Prime Minister said that the bulk of it may not get here until the end of September. He continues to make this promise, but that is seven long months away. More than that, and this is the really shocking part to me, the Liberal government has not even committed to reopening our economy even if we do achieve 70% vaccination rates in Canada, which seems to be understood is what we need for herd immunity. To be clear, the Liberals have yet to promise that if we get people vaccinated by September, as they have promised on several occasions, that things will go back to normal. In fact, they have made every effort to avoid making that commitment. Meanwhile, other countries are delivering plans, promises and deadlines to their people.
Canadians have been left to guess when there will be a full economic reopening and a full dismantling of these restrictions. People really do need to understand that no promise or commitment has been made. As of right now, there is no end in sight for Canadians and the Liberal government has failed to make this commitment, and I am not sure why.
The government has yet to give these thresholds, indicators or measures as to when we can return to normal and get our lives back. As I said, other countries are providing that certainty to their people. Why have the Liberals failed to ensure widespread use and implementation of all tools available, like rapid tests, therapeutics and, of course, vaccines? We have heard about these things for a year, yet they are not in widespread use. I know that the Liberal government is happy to blame the provinces, but the fact remains that the federal Liberal government is supposed to be Canada's leader in this crisis. Therefore, I do not accept that excuse. In my view, the Liberals should be moving heaven and earth to ensure that tools like this are commonplace by now. Instead, we are being told to sit tight for a minimum of another seven months.
What I do know is that Canadians need hope, which is something I hear every single day. They need to know when we will get out of this hell, and I do not use that word lightly. That is what this is for people. Hope is something that will help people. It will give them the strength to push through for another seven months. God help us if we are in this for longer. We need hope, a plan, indicators and communication. There has been nothing, and I cannot put this in stronger terms. People are suffering immeasurably. Years from now we will be looking back on this data and seeing the economic and mental devastation that it has caused. I am not the only one saying this. Social science experts across the country are saying this as well.
Parents have been telling me about their children, their—
View Michael Barrett Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, today I am speaking again to the government's bill, Bill C-7. I join my Conservative colleagues in being the voice for those who do not have one, those who have been thoroughly ignored and cast aside. Throughout this bill's debate, many people from the disability community have cried out in fear that they will be victims of this deeply flawed bill. That is why we are here today. We are here to stand up for them and be the voice that the government cannot ignore.
The Liberals are in such a fevered rush to pass this bill that they completely rejected amendments Conservatives offered at committee that would have seen safeguards in place for the vulnerable among us. They are in such a rush because they want to meet some arbitrary deadline to avoid political embarrassment. When there are lives on the line and the stakes could not get any higher than life or death, the Liberals are worried about embarrassment. They are not worried about the people who stand to be victimized by this bill and the unnecessary deaths it would lead to, but about political embarrassment.
We might remind the Liberals that it was their government that prorogued Parliament and locked the doors to this place, all in the name of covering up for the Prime Minister's corruption and blocking the investigations happening across multiple committees. Where was the need for great haste then?
One might have thought that when the Liberals missed their first arbitrary deadline it might have given the proponents of this dangerous bill time for pause and reflection about what this means for the most vulnerable Canadians, but it seems to have had the opposite effect. We are now looking at yet another arbitrary deadline and a vastly expanded bill that would see exponentially more Canadians victimized when they are at their lowest.
The government had a second chance to reform this bill and do what needed to be done to protect the vulnerable. Instead, it tossed protections to the wayside. This legislation, by its very nature, requires caution and constant monitoring to ensure that vulnerable Canadians are not being coerced, neglected or abused because of Bill C-7.
We need to offer Canadians our best when it comes to important legislation. That means listening to their concerns, considering them, offering them multiple options and avenues, and continuing to refine the legislation. This is especially the case with Bill C-7 because we can never bring back those people who have received MAID. This is something that is final.
The previous MAID legislation required a parliamentary review of the law five years after it was passed. This review was to provide the opportunity to hear from Canadians about how MAID is working and to see if any changes should be made. It was expected that this review would start in 2020.
I would point out that 2020 has come and gone. We now find ourselves in 2021. We have not seen any such review, and we are here debating a wide expansion of eligibility for MAID with the removal of safeguards for the vulnerable. The government has acted hastily and ignored the legislative review process in which safeguards for the vulnerable could have been strengthened. It chose to not undertake a proper review and went ahead with removing important safeguards.
We have heard from several witnesses who have attested to the fact that under the current MAID legislation they have been taken advantage of and made to feel increasingly vulnerable. We heard from Roger Foley. He is a man living with serious disabilities, a caretaker for his father when he battled cancer, who became subjected to coercion into assisted death by abuse, neglect, lack of care and threats.
We also heard from the national executive director for the DisAbled Women's Network Canada, who told Ruth's story. It was a story of a woman living with a disability who is not dying, but her inability to access proper care has left her considering MAID.
Moreover, the executive vice-president at Inclusion Canada told us that Bill C-7 is the disabled community's worst nightmare. Their biggest fear has always been that having a disability would become an acceptable reason for state-provided suicide. The disabled community has made it clear time and time again that they feel directly targeted by this new MAID legislation, that their lives are worth so little that they are better off to be dead than to live with a disability.
Despite the review of the MAID legislation never happening, here we are debating its expansion through Bill C-7, with the rationale being this bill is stated to reflect a societal consensus informed by views and concerns raised by Canadians, experts, practitioners, stakeholders, indigenous groups as well as provinces and territories during public consultations undertaken in January and February 2020. As Bill C-7 was originally proposed in February 2020, how could we have accessed a societal consensus on this in such a short period of time?
This brings us to the actual survey the Minister of Justice so often references in defending this bill. Many Canadians were deeply concerned about the ambiguity of the survey and online consultation that took place. Many of the questions were very ambiguous, and some people had an incredibly difficult time answering the questions, as they had to consent to different premises from what they believed.
Dr. Heidi Janz of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities gave her thoughts on the consultation process, stating:
I believe the consultation was moderately extensive; however, I believe that the consultation was geared towards a predetermined outcome. That is evident by the types of questions that were asked in the online survey and which seemed to be assuming that MAID would be expanded.
The government has missed the review of its prior legislation, having removed safeguards, and according to Dr. Janz, had consultations that seemed to have a predetermined outcome. We really have to wonder if proper consultations took place and the feedback given was acted on, or if the outcomes may have been predetermined.
The government must know that this is a deeply flawed piece of legislation by now. We know that the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion realizes the serious issues with this bill in reference to Roger Foley's story and of other vulnerable Canadians when she said before the Senate committee:
I absolutely acknowledge and am quite preoccupied by the power imbalance between practitioners and patients, particularly patients who have been in systems that have discriminated against them and ignored their voices their entire lives. I have grave concerns with the particular circumstances of the individual that you spoke of. Quite frankly, I can tell you, he is not alone. I regularly hear from families who are appalled by the fact that they take their child, potentially their older child [in] and are offered unprovoked MAID. I think that has to stop. That’s a matter of practice, I would suggest, and we need to get at that through our regulations, through working with our medical associations.
What does it say when the minister tasked with inclusion of the disability community in Canada makes a statement like that, yet the government carries on full steam ahead with this bill while rejecting good amendments? What does that say to Canadians who are living with a disability? Does it reaffirm their inherent human dignity or does it say that we do not particularly care about them or their opinions?
It seems like the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, who sits on the government side of the House, gets it. He is concerned for the well-being of the vulnerable and the potential victims of this bill. He said, “I don't like voting against my party, but as someone with a medical background and somebody who has dealt with this issue over the years a lot, I think morally it's incumbent upon me to stand up when it comes to issues of health and life and death.”
He went to say:
My biggest concern, as somebody who has spent my whole life trying to avoid accidentally killing people, is that we don't end up using MAID for people who don't really want to die.... I think, with a bit of time, people may come around to the fact that there are reasons they want to live.
Members can see that Kristine Cowley, who injured her spine 33 years ago, now has a doctorate and is a professor at a university, was a wheelchair track Paralympian, is married and has three children and has travelled extensively, all of which was done after her accident. She shared that it took her five years after her spinal cord injury to feel great again. She said:
To all outward appearances, I am a ‘successful’ person living and contributing to our community. But I’d be lying if I told you...that I was good to go within 3 months of my injury when I was discharged from the hospital. In fact, it was a few years before I was able to open my eyes in the morning and feel good.
Then there is the story of David Shannon. David suffered a spinal cord injury in a rugby scrum when he was 18 years old. After his accident, he said that he lay in bed close to death more times than he wished 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. David wrote:
...I have accomplished a lot in my life. I've crossed our great country by the power of my wheelchair—coast to coast. I've jumped out of an airplane at over 25,000 feet. I've made it to the North Pole and planted an accessible parking sign. I’ve written a book, performed in plays and on TV. I’ve received my law degree and been a Human Rights Commissioner. And I am an Order of Ontario and Order of Canada recipient. I’ve loved and been loved. My proudest accomplishment is that I lived.
How many stories like those of Kris or David will not happen because of this dangerous bill? How many stories of resilience and great Canadian comebacks will not happen because people will be offered death before proper care when they are at their lowest?
The Minister of Justice called my colleagues and me who are standing up and speaking for the voiceless and the vulnerable a “rump element” of the Conservative caucus. Now, that rump represents nearly one-third of this Parliament and represents Canadians from the Maritimes to the west coast and all points in-between who will always stand up for the vulnerable. I would remind the minister that he and his colleagues have silenced the voices that we are speaking for. He can try to silence the disabled community who cry in fear for their future, but he cannot silence our voices. He will not silence my voice.
Does the minister believe that the people we are fighting for are also a rump of Canadian society? Does he believe that Canadians living with a disability are a rump element? That is what it looks like to me. The disrespect and the eye-rolling coming from the Liberals when the disability community has tried to voice their concerns really is something to behold.
Death will be offered to Canadians before they are given proper access to meaningful care, the care they need to feel good again. We need to re-evaluate our priorities and shift our focus to reaffirming the inherent human dignity of all people, and especially those who are vulnerable. It is our duty to keep their preferential option in mind as we make decisions in this place. It is quite clear that Bill C-7 does not have the preferential option for the vulnerable in mind and does absolutely nothing to affirm the human dignity of the vulnerable.
We will offer death to people when they are at their lowest, after an injury resulting in a disability when hope seems lost and they are in the depths of despair. Instead of offering help and treatment and care, we will offer death. Despair can be transient. It can come and it can go. During the low points, people need support. Really, it is as simple as that.
We must ensure that people have access to the care they need first, to ensure that they can make an informed decision when it comes to life and death. Anything short of that is not just, and may be a form of coercion in and of itself. That says nothing of the damage that will be done by the sunset clause added to this bill, that demands that provisions be made to administer MAID to those who have mental illness.
This came as a shocking revelation given the difficulty people have in accessing mental health treatment across this country. Without adequate care, illnesses that are treatable can appear not to be. We, again, are seeing people being offered death before they are being offered care. Right now, 6,000 people with the most severe forms of mental illness are waiting up to five years to get the specialized treatment they need to reduce symptoms, learn to cope and to feel better.
Instead of working to better those systems, to give people the help they need when they need it most, the government is striving to offer them death. When appearing before the Senate, Dr. John Maher, a psychiatrist who works only with people who have the most severe and persistent mental illness, said:
Clinical relationships are already being profoundly undermined. My patients are asking: “Why try to recover when MAID is coming and I will be able to choose death?” Some of my patients keep asking for MAID while they are getting better but can’t recognize that yet.
That speaks to the need for better and more accessible mental health treatments in this country. People with mental illness should not feel the need to end their lives for lack of treatment and the hope this can bring.
Dr. Maher went on to say:
Determining whether a particular psychiatric disease is irremediable is impossible; people recover after 2 years and after 15 years. I have repeatedly [have] psychiatrists refer patients to me where I am told they will never get better; yet they have all improved symptom control and reduced suffering when they finally get intensive care.
We need to help people get better and to give them hope, not do everything we can to make death the easiest path for them.
I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to reaffirm the dignity that is inherent and inalienable in all people, in every person, and to keep the preferential option for the vulnerable in mind. That option is care and support, not death.
I will continue to fight and speak up for the voiceless and those who will be victimized by this bill. We must ensure that someone's worst day is not their last.
At this time, I move:
That the motion be amended by:
(a) replacing the words “agrees with amendment 1(a)(ii) made by the Senate” with “respectfully disagrees with amendment 1(a)(ii) made by the Senate because, in the Justice Department's own words, it 'could be seen as undermining suicide prevention initiatives and normalizing death as a solution to many forms of suffering'”;
(b) deleting all the words beginning with the words “as a consequence” and concluding with the words “receive the report”; and
(c) replacing the words “section 6 be amended by replacing the words '18 months after' with the words 'on the second anniversary of'” with “section 6 be deleted”.
View Eric Melillo Profile
CPC (ON)
View Eric Melillo Profile
2020-12-09 15:55 [p.3223]
Madam Speaker, I appreciate a lot of what my colleague had to say on this matter. One of the things he mentioned was the importance of having all health care options available, including palliative care and a stronger support system for those who are struggling and potentially nearing the end of their lives.
I wonder if the member has any comments on the current situation, particularly in northern and remote regions, concerning health care options and how important it is to ensure that all those options are available for people.
View Bob Zimmer Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Speaker, that is a great question. What I would have preferred to see in a bill like Bill C-7 would be something to deal with palliative care and other treatments, even before considering a bill like this.
Again, as was brought up by my colleague previously, the government prorogued Parliament, yet things like palliative care for people who are ill, especially in northern communities, is a big gap. We do not see where the government is actually caring for those northern communities. As the former critic for northern affairs, we saw a big absence of care in the north. We should be looking at all forms of care and dealing with those first before we ever consider a bill like Bill C-7.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-11-27 12:19 [p.2628]
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present petition 10625058 today, dealing with an issue that constituents tell me is a daily concern, which is the significant shortage of family physicians. The petitioners point out that, according to Statistics Canada, 4.8 million Canadians do not have their own family physician.
The petitioners call upon the government to create a holistic, full program to ensure access to family doctors. We have doctors in Canada, and new doctors coming on stream, but they tend to mostly head to urban areas, which is of particular concern in areas like Saanich—Gulf Islands.
View Tamara Jansen Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Speaker, what is before us now is perhaps among the greatest human rights abuses in Canadian history, legislating what amounts to a eugenics movement in Canada.
As that quote hits members and sinks in, they might imagine the horrors she is speaking about. Is it an effort by the Canadian government to perfect the gene pool? Is it a plan to eliminate those in society deemed burdensome or unwanted? What could the plan possibly be? She is speaking about Bill C-7.
Catherine Frazee, a professor at Ryerson University and disabled persons advocate, who lives with a disability herself, stated that Canada's disability community stands firmly against Bill C-7 because it communicates to us that our lives are not worth living.
Bill C-7, which seeks to remove necessary safeguards to protect the vulnerable from euthanasia, and to expand access to euthanasia for those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable, is dangerous and will lead to countless early and tragic deaths.
Since it was tabled in the previous session, Canada's Conservatives have listened to the pleas of Canada's disability community, who are begging the government to change the bill to protect them from the harm it will cause.
We have listened to people like Roger Foley, who told the justice committee from his hospital bed that he would not survive if this legislation passed, and that the Parliament of Canada would have his blood on its hands.
We listened to Dr. Heidi Janz, who told the committee that the removal of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” as a limiting eligibility criterion for the provision of MAID would result in people with disabilities seeking MAID as an ultimate capitulation to a lifetime of ableist oppression. We listened to countless others from Canada's disability community and indigenous community, whose voices the Liberals decided were not even worth hearing.
Why will the Liberals not listen? Why are they in such a rush to pass some of the most complicated legislation to ever come before Parliament? Why did they vote down all our amendments, which Canada's disability community had a hand in drafting?
To Canada's disability community, their doctors and their advocates, I say this. I am listening. We are listening, and we will not stop until their voices are heard.
I would like to speak now about Dr. Ramona Coelho, a doctor practising in London, Ontario, whose current practice is largely composed of people living with disabilities, as well as refugees, men out of prison or on bail, and other marginalized persons.
She made it clear to the committee that if this bill passes, she may be forced to leave the medical profession. She stated, “I find it appalling that there is a suicide completion track just for my type of patients. Everyone else's suicidal thoughts are irrational and those people deserve saving, but in this bill, my patients do not. If a young man tried to shoot himself, we would hide his guns and offer him suicide prevention. What is it about persons who are disabled and sick that makes it okay to do otherwise? There is no medical evidence that their suicidality is different from that of able-bodied persons.”
This is the ultimate form of ableism with stakes as high as life and death. We offer suicide prevention to able-bodied people who experience suicidal ideation, but if someone is disabled, their life has no value and is not worth living. Their suffering and the burden they place on the health care system qualifies someone for suicide assistance, not suicide prevention.
If Bill C-7 passes unamended, presenting MAID to patients who live with disabilities will become a standard of care. Doctors will be forced to offer the termination of a patient's life, which could be long ahead of them, as a standard of care. Imagine the weight placed on that doctor's conscience. Doctors work with patients to help them find value, joy and hope for a future in their lives. When death is not reasonably foreseeable we are no longer dealing with medical assistance in dying, but medically administered death. We have gone from MAID to mad.
A letter penned by physicians, together with vulnerable Canadians, explained the challenges medically administered death as a standard of care would pose to their ability to do their jobs. This petition received a thousand signatures from physicians across the country. Normally to table a petition in the House, it only takes 25 names. Therefore, when a thousand experts in a field vehemently oppose what the government is doing to their work and to their patients, the government needs to listen to what they are saying.
The bill would allow a person who has just suffered a life-changing spinal cord injury to end his or her life just 90 days after the catastrophic event that caused the injury. When people are most vulnerable, experiencing unimaginable stress about their new reality, a doctor would be forced to suggest ending their lives as an option.
From my conversations with doctors and some testimony on the record at justice committee, suicidal ideation after a catastrophic injury is very common but almost always goes away with good care and when a patient eventually finds a way to cope with what he or she is dealing with. By offering death when people are most vulnerable, we are robbing them of their futures.
It takes much longer than 90 days for suicidal ideations to go away, but they do and people find joy, support and a life that is absolutely worth living. In fact, because of chronic underfunding of our health care system in Canada, it usually takes more than 90 days for a patient to even see a specialist. Do we really want to offer death before we offer care? Is that what we want our legacy as members of this Parliament to be?
The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion told the justice committee that it was easier to receive MAID than it was to get a wheelchair. It is far easier to receive MAID than it is to receive quality specialized care. A request for MAID cannot be truly voluntary, free from coercion, without first access to quality care that meets the needs of a patient.
The opposition put forward an amendment to require patients be offered meaningful access to care before MAID could be carried out, and Liberal members voted it down. This is what systemic discrimination looks like. On the street, people look away from persons with disabilities and many Canadians think they would rather be dead than left disabled. This type of discrimination is 100% unacceptable in 2020.
Let me share the story of Spring Hawes, a lady who has lived with a spinal cord injury for 15 years now. She said, “As disabled people, we are conditioned to view ourselves as burdensome. We're taught to apologize for our existence and to be grateful for the tolerance of those around us. We're often shown that our lives are worth less than non-disabled lives. Our lives and our survival depends on our agreeableness.”
Let us face it. A choice to die is not a free choice when their lives depend on their compliance. What does it tell disabled Canadians when we are willing to offer them death before we are willing to offer them care?
Kristine Crowley, a person who had a spinal cord injury 33 years ago, now has a doctorate and is a professor at a university. She was a wheelchair track Paralympian. She is married, has three children and has travelled extensively, all done after her accident.
Kris shared that it took her five years after her spinal cord injury to feel great again. She said, “To all outward appearances, I'm a successful person living and contributing to our community, but I'd be lying if I told you that I was good to go within three months of my injury when I was discharged from hospital. In fact, it was a few years before I was able to open my eyes in the morning and feel good.”
How many stories like Kristine's will never be told if Bill C-7 passes? That is what we need to ask ourselves.
My colleagues and the disability community are begging the government to stop this mad train. We do not want to be responsible for one of the greatest human rights abuses in Canadian history.
I am here on behalf of disabled Canadians, their doctors and their advocates. The government did not listen to them, but it has to listen to me: Stop the ableism, stop treating them like their lives are not worth living.
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
BQ (QC)
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
2020-11-27 13:20 [p.2638]
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. Once again, this is a very emotional debate.
I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the fact that many people believe it is important that services for people with disabilities be improved so that these individuals are not choosing to access medical assistance in dying because of the poor quality of care available to them.
I have spoken with many organizations that help people with disabilities, and there might be a deeper problem here. Some requests for medical assistance in dying may be attributable to the poor quality of care that is sometimes given to people with disabilities.
Perhaps that is because, in recent years, the federal government has not transferred enough money to Quebec and the provinces for health care. Increased health transfers could help people with disabilities and give those who want to live the option of receiving proper palliative care. In short, it would give them options.
What does my colleague think about the importance of reinvesting in health care?
Results: 1 - 15 of 44 | Page: 1 of 3

1
2
3
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data