44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 13, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/13/24 11:38:30 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the position of the government when it comes euthanasia is so disconnected from the reality and the concerns many Canadians have. The Liberals constantly want to have a conversation about further expansion. However, I hear concerns from constituents and from people across the country about the abuses under the existing system; about how people with disabilities have been pressured and told that they are selfish for not wanting to go down this road; about how, in the absence of proper support, life and dignity affirming support, we have individuals who are at risk of giving up. Instead of being affirmed in their pursuit of meaning and purpose, they are being told “Sure, go ahead and give up.” This is the reality in Canada.
When I talk to legislators in other parts of the world, including legislators from the so-called progressive left, they are horrified by what is happening in Canada. Canada is presented as a counter-example of what can go wrong when we go down this road.
Why are we not having more conversations about addressing the existing abuses in the system instead of this fanatical push by the government to always look for the next expansion. Why not stop and look at how we got here and how we can address these significant problems that have emerged in the current system?
228 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 11:57:30 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech, but there is this framing of not being ready. We support further delay so that a Conservative government can forever protect Canadians by ensuring this expansion never happens, but it does not make sense to me that the member would identify obvious problems with this, and not just present problems or short-term problems, but structural problems, with allowing the medically facilitated killing of those with mental health challenges, and say that just means we are not ready.
I think it is quite obvious that, after years of the government trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and trying to say that somehow we can have medically facilitated killing for those with mental health challenges while at the same time not increasing other kinds of risks and problems, the government has tried to figure out how to do this for years and has clearly concluded that it is not something that is desirable.
Why not just admit that this was a terrible idea from the beginning rather than couch it in this framing of not being ready, but that maybe we will be soon?
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:14:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, during question period, I was reflecting on a unanimous consent motion that I would like to bring—
Some hon. members: No.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 6:37:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one striking thing about this debate, for me, is that no advocate of legalized or expanded euthanasia says that everybody should be able to access this thing because they want it. Rather, what advocates say is that people in certain situations should be able to access it. For instance, they say that if an able-bodied person comes to a doctor and says, “I want you to help me end my life”, they are offered some kind of suicide prevention. However, if a person with a disability says, “In the context of my situation, I want to end my life”, they might be offered suicide facilitation.
This is not about a general policy of choice or autonomy, rather this is about saying that certain people who present with an apparent desire for death are treated one way and others are treated a different way. That raises a big problem in terms of how we value the lives of people with disabilities. I am curious to hear my colleague's response.
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 6:40:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Lethbridge.
In my still, as yet, relatively short parliamentary career, it has been necessary for me to address this dark subject of legalized medically facilitated killing well over a dozen times. When I was elected eight years ago, it was not legal, under any circumstance, for a doctor to kill, or to assist in the killing of, a patient. Prior to that time, when this issue had been brought to the House of Commons, proposals for the legalization of this sort of killing had been defeated by massive margins, with a majority of Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats opposing such changes, just eight short years ago.
I recall, as a young Conservative staffer in 2009, hearing and reflecting on the wise words of former NDP MP Joe Comartin, who told the House the following on October 2 of that year. He said:
I have spoken to Carol Derbyshire, who is the head of the hospice. She said the hospice does not get requests for assisted suicide. They provide the care, not just to the patient but to the family. She was very clear on that. She has seen any number of surveys that say one of the major reasons, aside from pain, that people want assisted suicide in their regime is that they do not want to be a burden on their family, their society, their community. If we can build that system to make sure they do not have to be concerned about that, we take away any desire to terminate their lives arbitrarily and at an earlier date than would be natural.
We need to look at our system right now.... At this point, approximately 20% of our population is covered by meaningful palliative care, hospice and a home care system. That is all we have in the country. Then there is another 15% or maybe 17% who are covered by partial assistance at the end of life.
This former NDP MP foresaw how requests for premature death would emerge not primarily from some fixed and deeply held desire to die, but from a social, cultural and political context in which people in pain are either invited to stay or invited to leave and in which people are offered the support to stay or not. We are all social beings, and our exercise of autonomy happens in a social context. The current context is one of increasing atomization and division, economic failures leading to immense affordability challenges and a kind of moral chaos resulting from the common lack of constructive frameworks for finding meaning and purpose in life.
The touchstones of connection, happiness and meaning are eroding. This leads to an increasing demand for government services that will, it is hoped, fill the gap left by declining community and family and that will provide people with support in finding connection, happiness and meaning when they are lacking. As these supports are never available from the state in ways that truly fulfill the desire for connection and community that we all have, the pain increases and leads more people to want to give up.
This has been the trajectory of our society recently, with the additional reality that COVID-era restrictions and polarization accelerated the breakdown of connection and community among many people. As more and more people want to give up, the legalization of medically facilitated death is presented as a solution at the end of the road. Over the last eight years, as more and more people have come to the end of that road, the numbers continue to go up exponentially. This is the social context driving the mental health crisis we have, to which euthanasia is now being offered as a solution.
In the speech from MP Comartin that I referred to, he also observed how a lack of proper training and emphasis on effective pain management meant that existing tools and technologies were not being deployed to relieve pain, even in the many cases where such relief was possible. He predicted, again correctly, that the legalization of euthanasia would lead to less attention to pain relief and thus further tilting the decision-making playing field away from life and toward death. That is exactly what we are seeing.
John Paul II posited in the 1990s:
[The] reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable “culture of death”. This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another. A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more favoured tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. In this way a kind of “conspiracy against life” is unleashed. This conspiracy involves not only individuals in their personal, family or group relationships, but goes far beyond, to the point of damaging and distorting, at the international level, relations between peoples and States.
Eight years on, we are sadly seeing the flower of this predicted culture of death. We hear proposals for the killing of children, even babies, and for the killing of those with depression and other mental health challenges. We have heard many testimonies of people who have been called selfish for wanting to remain alive in a situation where they require the care and support of others.
We are seeing the lives of those with disabilities, those facing homelessness and others facing pain and suffering devalued at the social, institutional and political levels. We see the manifesting of this war of the powerful against the weak, insofar as suicide prevention is offered to some, while suicide facilitation is offered to others, depending on pre-existing power and privilege.
Proponents of euthanasia have never said that all people who want to die should be able to choose to die. Rather, they have said that certain kinds of people should be helped to die, while other kinds of people should be helped to live. This differential treatment of different people necessarily informs the social context in which people feel loved, included and happy, or not.
Eight years on, Canada’s experiment with medically facilitated killing has failed. I will leave it to another time to consider whether it could have succeeded. Some will argue that it would have been possible to legalize euthanasia without unleashing the kind of ever-expanding culture of death that we see proposed. However, what is clear, at least in the context of our own experience, is that medically-facilitated killing has a taken on a kind of self-reinforcing logic that leads to constant expansion, a devaluing of the lives of the most vulnerable and eroding public and community support for the things that would actually improve the quality of life of those who suffer.
One effect of this culture of death is that people in vulnerable situations actually fear interactions with the medical system because they do not want to be pressured toward suicide in a moment of weakness or vulnerability. I have specifically heard this concern, even now from people facing acute mental pain, that they do not want to seek help in many contexts because they are looking for life and dignity-affirming help, and they are afraid the so-called care they might receive would take the form of pressuring them toward an early exit.
This is part of the reason Conservatives support the protection of conscience for individual medical practitioners and institutions. It is not just for the sake of the provider, but also for the sake of the patient, who should at least have the freedom to opt to access health care in a life and dignity-affirming environment, where they can be confident that they will not be pressured or even offered premature death. Understandably, many of those who are in a vulnerable state do not wish to even be offered such things, since the affirmation of life and meaning is an essential part of the proper course of treatment for those facing mental health challenges.
After eight years, it is important that we stop and take stock of how much has changed, lest we forget that political choices have profound consequences and also that political choices, once made, can still be at least partially unmade. I am reminded of this every time I talk to a legislator in another country about Canada’s euthanasia regime. Legislators in other western democratic countries, including many from the left, are for the most part horrified by the present reality of euthanasia in Canada.
One British legislator told their House of Commons the following:
...turning to the example of Canada across the pond, Living and Dying Well also found that clinicians reported five specific issues surrounding legalisation, including that it complicates the management of pre-existing symptoms; adversely impacts the important doctor-patient relationship; causes tension for families during what is often an already deeply challenging period; diverts resources away from crucial palliative care services; and confuses patients as to the nature and purpose of palliative care. When considered as a whole, those issues reported by practising clinicians in Canada are not something that we as lawmakers can or should overlook, and I believe that the highlighted impacts on palliative care provision are of particular concern.
Why are concerns about Canada’s emergent culture of death not as well known or discussed in the Canadian House of Commons or in Canadian society as they are in the British House of Commons or in other countries? Here, I do want to point the finger specifically at our state-funded media, the CBC.
I am most enthusiastic about our Conservative commitment to defund the CBC because of the shameless way that this organization uses its funded and privileged position to push stories that glorify euthanasia, while ignoring the pain and suffering of those whose experiences the CBC does not want to share. Good ideas win fair debates, and my constituents should not be forced to give over a billion dollars every year to an organization that desperately hunts for stories aimed at masking the dark realities of medically facilitated killing and suicide.
Canada was not this way eight years ago, and fortunately, Canada will not be this way forever. The end of this fanatically pro-euthanasia pro-death government is now more than reasonably foreseeable. A Conservative government would forever dispense with this lingering proposed legalization of medically facilitated suicide for those with mental health challenges. We would turn hurt into hope. We would stand with the most vulnerable and work to revive the structures of family and community that advance connection, happiness and meaning. We would celebrate life instead of death for all, not just for the privileged.
For nations and for people there is always hope. “For the wretched of the earth, there is a flame that never dies. Even the darkest nights will end and the sun will rise.”
1916 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 6:51:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have more respect for the charter than I believe this member of the government has. Notably, they have chosen, in the case of the Emergencies Act ruling, to appeal a court ruling. In the case of the Truchon decision, made by one judge, they chose not to appeal. I think this was clearly because the ideological minister of justice at the time was desperate to justify the expansion of the already flawed regime. Therefore, the government arbitrarily chooses not to appeal certain rulings when it likes the ruling and to appeal other rulings.
This is not about what the courts have said. The government has consistently pushed an ideological agenda that goes far beyond what the courts have said, and the mental health provision has absolutely nothing to do with the court ruling.
The members opposite would sometimes like to dispense with an actual substantive engagement on the topic and just say they are going to let other people make the decision. However, it does not wash, especially in the case where they chose not to appeal the ruling.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 6:53:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, respectfully to my colleague, I have journeyed with close family members who have suffered significantly at the time of their death. I think one of the biggest challenges we see in this country, and members of the NDP have pointed this out in previous Parliaments, is a significant lack of proper training in pain management and proper available palliative care, as well as instances of people being actively pushed towards death by the system.
I am not worried about MAID being offered to everyone; euthanasia is not being offered to everyone. Euthanasia is being offered to certain people in certain situations, reflecting a social and political view of the value of their life. This is what the disability community has pushed Parliament to hear. When we offer suicide facilitation for people with disabilities and prevention for people without disabilities, that clearly sends the wrong message about valuing the universal value and dignity of all human life.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 6:55:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in terms of legislative timing, the government missed an opportunity to actually resolve this issue when it voted against the private member's bill from my colleague, the member for Abbotsford. Conservatives put forward a bill in the fall that would fix this problem and forever put a stake in this terrible idea of euthanasia for those with mental health challenges.
Now, we want the bill before us, which would extend the timeline, to pass so that when we have a Conservative government, we can actually permanently fix this problem. However, it is up to the government to allocate more days for debate; I would suggest that they do so, so more members can speak and so we can get it done before the deadline.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 9:13:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the fact the government had to put forward this legislation is a demonstration of its profound repeated failure on this file. Conservatives put forward a private member's bill, which was voted on in the fall, that would have forever killed this terrible idea of medically facilitated suicide for those with mental health challenges.
Government members, in the main, voted against that bill, and now they are coming back to the House. They have not learned the error of their ways. They do not recognize that, fundamentally, the medical system facilitating the suicide of those with depression and other mental health challenges is inconscionable. They have not realized that. Instead, they said that they just want a little more time to figure it out.
This is a terrible idea. It is never going to be a good idea, and they should have voted for the Conservative private member's bill to kill it when they had a chance. Nonetheless, we are ready to, after the next election, pass the legislation required to make sure this horrible idea never becomes a reality in Canada.
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 9:30:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary fails to acknowledge is the many ways in which the government's policies on euthanasia have been a profound failure.
In fact, it has been repeatedly called out, not only by those who are concerned about the impact on those struggling with mental health challenges, but also by those within the disability community, which has been nearly unanimous in their criticism of the government's approach. The disability community has identified how the approach the government is taking is undermining the services that they wish to access, and it is in fact devaluing the lives and contributions of people living with disabilities. The Liberal government and the parliamentary secretary need to acknowledge that.
I want to ask the member a question. There were some very specific constructive proposals around this in the last Conservative election platform, things such as how a doctor should not be bringing up and proposing MAID to someone who has not asked for it. At a minimum, if there is going to be a conversation about euthanasia, it should be initiated by the patient. It should not be something a doctor, someone in the health care system or someone who works for a government department, such as veterans affairs, is suggesting to them.
Does the member agree that one reasonable reform would be to say that it should be the patient bringing up the conversation, if it is a conversation they want to have, not somebody else bringing it up and suggesting death to them?
255 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 9:48:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of presumptive comments made in the House about what the people think or want. I do think it is important to just say, at the outset, that every poll that has been done, that I have ever seen, shows that a substantial majority of people in this country do not support the expansion of euthanasia to include those for whom mental health is the sole underlying condition.
I do want to ask the member about advance directives. I think there is a lot of misinformation and confusion around the issue of advance directives. The idea of advance directives implies that I could know how my future self would feel under the conditions of a particular disease or challenge. Garnett Genuis today, at age 37, could know for sure what a future version of himself would want, in terms of life or death, if he were to experience dementia, Alzheimer's or something like that.
The reality is I have no idea what that future person would want in that situation. The idea that a present person could bind a future self under different circumstances to die in a particular situation is a radical denial of autonomy. It makes my present self the dictator over my future self. A position of autonomy emphasizes the legitimacy of consent in the moment, but not the denial of autonomy in which a prior version of self binds the future self.
243 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that many Canadians are struggling right now. I would challenge her to reconsider her participation in the confidence and supply agreement with the government as a result. Maybe we will have to agree to disagree on whether more federal spending on federal bureaucracy, sticking its nose into provincial jurisdiction, is actually going to improve the lives of, for instance, kids who are hungry in schools.
I want to ask the member about the bill before us, Bill C-62, and the situation around euthanasia and facilitated suicide in Canada. Because of the challenges we are seeing, with people facing pressure and people being offered or having euthanasia pushed on them, in our last election platform, Conservatives proposed that we would protect the right of patients to choose to receive care in a MAID-free environment. That is, by protecting the conscience rights of physicians and health care institutions, we would preserve the right of patients to choose to be in a hospice or a health care facility where they know they would be offered life-affirming care.
There are many Canadians, I think, who want that. They do not appreciate being in a situation where government bureaucrats, health care officials or bureaucrats in other departments are pushing, promoting or encouraging them to choose a path they do not want to take.
Does the NDP support our proposal to protect the right of patients to choose to receive care in euthanasia-free or MAID-free spaces?
252 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
