44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 29, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, this private member's bill, in my view, is an attempt to override the patient's right to access information about, and to have access to, a legally provided medical service based on the personal beliefs of the service provider.
It is not about intimidation of health care professionals. Health care professionals already have that protection. No one who objects for conscience reasons is required to participate in any medical service to which they object, but professional organizations do require service providers to provide referrals for those seeking assistance if they are unable or unwilling to provide it.
Let me be very clear. Currently, medical professionals are permitted to opt out of providing a service if they object on moral or religious grounds. With that right, they also have an obligation to the patient and, as such, they are required to provide the patient with a referral for that service.
The Conservatives should know that the right for patients to access information and referrals for service has been tested in the courts. In fact, in January of 2018, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's policy on effective referrals and the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that decision in May of 2019. Justice Herman Wilton-Siegel wrote in the unanimous ruling, “the evidence in the record establishes a real risk of a deprivation of equitable access to health care, particularly on the part of the more vulnerable members of our society, in the absence of the effective referral requirements of the Policies.”
What we are debating here today is another attempt by the Conservatives to limit the patient's right to access medical assistance in dying. They are simply trying to create fear and division in the community and trying to find a back door to deny patients access to services. If patients cannot access services, what would that mean?
A constituent in Vancouver East wrote to me about the implication of a loved one not being able to access medically assisted dying. He was clear to say that it would just mean more pain and excruciating suffering, to the point where he said he was certain the loved one would take their own life no matter how dangerous or the means.
Is this what the Conservatives really want to do? Do they want to drive people to this point of desperation? I should hope not, yet here we are debating this bill. The effect of this bill, if passed, would mean exactly that. The impact of this bill would be particularly devastating in rural and remote communities where there are already fewer health care providers and services.
Aside from medically assisted dying, I fully expect this bill, if passed, would have other implications in other health services. It is entirely plausible that others will seek a similar exemption from providing abortion services. The potential implications for women's rights are very real as it could be used as a precedent to restrict access to family planning and abortion services. Already women in the LGBTQ2+ community are faced with barriers to access abortion and family planning services.
In Canada, there remain huge barriers to timely access to abortion services. The problem is especially acute in many of the rural, northern and remote communities. LGBTQ2+, non-binary people and migrant workers also face far too many barriers to access reproductive health care.
New Democrats are in full support of the community's calls to ensure access to abortion and other reproductive health care services in rural and remote regions. There must be free and universal access to contraception. The government must eliminate barriers to access for reproductive health care for marginalized groups, including undocumented people and two-spirit, transgender and non-binary people. Access to health care services is enshrined in the Canada Health Act. Instead of finding ways to limit access, all parliamentarians should be working on finding ways to ensure access.
I would note that the special committee has actually started looking further into the issues around MAID, although that committee's work began late and with much delay. Nonetheless, that work has started, and some of the key questions that it is addressing would add to the issues around assisted dying, which has already been debated in the House. However, the bill before us, in my view, would not add to that issue. In fact, the bill is clearly trying to create division and a divide in the community. It is trying to stoke up fear where fear should not exist. Health care workers and professionals are protected. They have the opportunity to opt out. They have the right to opt out, so the bill is entirely unnecessary.
I would be remiss if I did not note the fact that the bill is back again for the second time, even though the first time it was tabled it went nowhere. I have to wonder about that, because all 338 of us in the House of Commons hold our breath after each election to see if, in the lottery draw, we would get the opportunity to table a private member's bill or motion to be debated and voted on the House. However, this member has chosen to bring back a bill that has already gone through the process and went nowhere. There are so many other urgent issues to debate, and I could rattle off a number of them.
As the immigration critic, I could talk about bringing forward policy changes by way of a bill or a motion to address the immigration situation, the immigration processing delays and the backlog that exists in our system right now. There are over two million people waiting to find out what is going to happen to their lives and unable to move forward because of immigration processing delays.
We could actually bring forward a bill to talk about the blocking of family reunification. For so many families, spousal sponsorships are being blocked because they are unable to see timely processing of their spousal sponsorship. They cannot even bring their loved ones here to Canada with a visitor permit because of section 179(b) of IRPA regulations. In fact, I have, sitting on the Order Paper that I could table any time, a bill on striking section 179(b) so that we could ensure family reunification takes place for loved ones and stop creating barriers for them to even come and visit their loved ones on a travel visa.
We could be talking about the Afghan crisis. So many Afghan interpreters and their families are in danger right now and unable to get to safety because the government has put a cap on the special immigration measure numbers for Afghans who served this country. We could also be talking about the drug poisoning crisis or the housing crisis and putting an end to the financialization of housing.
Any number of these issues are worthy of debate, but the Conservatives chose this one all because they want to stoke up fear. That is shameful.
1185 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 6:07:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on May 5, I rose to ask the Prime Minister if he would take immediate action to deliver a dedicated housing strategy for indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people and end the ongoing genocide against indigenous women and girls.
The final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls cites housing and homelessness over 200 times. This is the result of colonization and decades of neglect and broken promises by successive federal governments, from Liberals to Conservatives to Liberals.
Precarious housing situations contribute to increased risk of violence, trafficking and the high number of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. Urban indigenous peoples are eight times more likely to experience homelessness compared with the general population. The national inquiry's final report calls upon governments to ensure that indigenous peoples have equitable access to basic rights, including housing, but the current government has failed to deliver a for indigenous, by indigenous urban, rural and northern housing strategy.
The Prime Minister has said over and again, “No relationship is more important to Canada than the relationship with Indigenous Peoples,” but reconciliation must be more than just words. It requires real action, commitment, listening to indigenous peoples and substantial investments. In other words, it requires action.
The Prime Minister's words ring hollow when indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people in Canada continue to disproportionately experience violence and homelessness. The $300 million over five years for the for indigenous, by indigenous urban, rural and northern housing strategy is woefully inadequate to address the urgent needs on the ground. After decades of neglect and colonization, it is a slap in the face to indigenous peoples. Ensuring access to safe, affordable and culturally appropriate housing is critical to ending this genocide against indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people.
Call to justice 4.6 calls upon the government to “immediately commence the construction of new housing and the provision of repairs for existing housing to meet the housing needs of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people.”
Call to justice 4.7 calls upon the government to:
...support the establishment and long-term sustainable funding of Indigenous-led low-barrier shelters, safe spaces, transition homes, second-stage housing, and services for Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people who are homeless, near homeless, dealing with food insecurity, or in poverty, and who are fleeing violence or have been subjected to sexualized violence and exploitation. All governments must ensure that shelters, transitional housing, second-stage housing, and services are appropriate to cultural needs, and available wherever Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people reside.
Tomorrow is the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. Our country must reflect on our history of colonial violence and genocide. The government has a responsibility to end this violence and to stop perpetuating this colonial violence, this intergenerational trauma and this social and economic marginalization. We need action now.
490 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 6:15:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, the government needs to face the truth and acknowledge the reality of the ongoing genocide of indigenous women and girls in this country.
One in 10 indigenous women were victims of a violent crime in 2019, and between 2015 and 2020, the average homicide rate involving indigenous victims was six times higher than that of non-indigenous people.
A 22-year-old Inuit woman, Savanna Pikuyak, who came to Ottawa to become a nurse, was murdered just four days after arriving in the city. She lacked access to safe, secure, affordable housing. That is the reality. She was away from her home community.
We still do not have a for indigenous, by indigenous urban, rural and northern housing strategy. Will the government commit today, on the eve of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation to adequately fund a for indigenous, by indigenous—
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
