“We should base our laws on real evidence. The member shared only unproven stories, not proof of coercion. Does the member have real evidence to support changing the Criminal Code?”

“Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we believe in evidence-based decision-making as opposed to decision-based evidence-making. We heard language like “often unsolicited offers of death” and people being “bombarded with requests”. We heard several anecdotes that came well short, in my view, of coercion, but we only heard anecdotes. My question for this member is this. This is proposing an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada. What is the evidentiary basis? Is there anything more than second- and third-hand, unproven anecdotal stories?”

“I do not support this bill. The Conservatives are using it to scare religious groups. Veterans Affairs Canada does not offer or push medically assisted dying on veterans. When one worker wrongly brought it up in the past, they were fired, and our staff are trained never to do it.”

“Mr. Speaker, medical assistance in dying is deeply personal. It is also exceptionally complicated, with ethical, religious, constitutional and political elements. Members should make no mistake: Bill C-260 is the most recent instalment in the Conservative pattern of repeatedly sowing fear among communities of faith. During last year’s election campaign, many Canadians bought into the Conservative messaging that the Liberals planned to remove charitable status for faith-based organizations. This, of course, was not true and has never come to pass, but the fear stoked by it mobilized voters and donors. The mission was accomplished, I suppose. Off the success of that misinformation campaign, we witnessed the drawn-out spectacle of the debate with respect to the exemption for religious speech as hate speech, where logic and precedent had no place, only fear, hyperbole and, yes, fundraising. Communities of faith deserve better. They deserve respect. They can handle the truth. They can appreciate and understand nuance. Today, then, is the latest attempt to use anecdotes and either anonymous or unverified accusations to build a case designed with fear in mind and faith communities as the target. Members should make no mistake: Bill C-260 is a solution in search of a problem. Nowhere is this more true than in the allegations we just heard with respect to veterans. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I can assure the House and all Canadians that the very foundation of Veterans Affairs Canada, its purpose, is to honour and commemorate those who have served in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to ensure that they receive the support they need after leaving the military. Veterans have dedicated their lives to serving our nation, sometimes at great personal sacrifice. Canada owes them respect and care, as well as a commitment to help them live in dignity after their service ends. It must be understood that medical assistance in dying was never a Veterans Affairs Canada program or service, and that employees were never directed or encouraged to discuss the subject with veterans. It has never been that way. It will never be that way. In 2022, when it was brought to the department’s attention that a Veterans Affairs employee spoke inappropriately about medical assistance in dying, VAC immediately apologized to the veterans involved, launched a comprehensive investigation and put safeguards in place to prevent something similar from ever happening again, including but not limited to robust training and unambiguous expectations of conduct. Simply put, MAID is not and never will be a policy of Veterans Affairs Canada. The investigation reviewed over 400,000 files dating back to 2016. It found that the inappropriate statements were not indicative of a systemic problem; rather, they were isolated incidents involving a single employee who raised the issue four separate times. That person is no longer employed at Veterans Affairs Canada. If someone seeks advice on or assistance with medical assistance in dying, employees are trained to refer them to their primary care provider, as they do with respect to any other request for medical guidance. These measures, communicated clearly in writing and supported by ongoing training, reinforce VAC’s commitment to providing veterans and their families with high-quality, respectful and appropriate support while maintaining strict boundaries regarding medical assistance in dying. Understanding the concerns, circumstances, needs and wishes of individual veterans allows VAC staff to then advise them on all of the benefits, services and programs for which they may be eligible. Frontline staff also receives training on how to de-escalate difficult situations with clients and report significant incidents that require further attention. This ensures that any inappropriate comments are dealt with immediately. Training for employees who interact with veterans and their families includes official courses and structured on-the-job training. Discussions and consultations with subject matter experts will help to reinforce the knowledge and skills of Veterans Affairs Canada employees as they carry out their duties. The department also sends regular reminders to frontline staff to ensure that expectations are clearly understood. What is more, Veterans Affairs Canada provides additional on-the-job training specifically for case managers. These employees work directly, one-on-one, with veterans and their families to assess their needs and objectives, identify challenges and develop plans to help them access the information and services they need. Before interacting with clients, case managers must pass an intensive seven-week course. This practical, interactive learning experience allows them to learn while working with active, real-life cases as opposed to scenarios. The result is that case managers can hit the ground running, delivering services to veterans in as timely a manner as possible. Despite all of this, there are still moments when a veteran may raise the issue of medical assistance in dying. VAC officials are trained to explain the implications of such a decision on their families. If a veteran has chosen to pursue medical assistance in dying with their primary care provider and shares this information with a member of the veteran service team, VAC staff can support the veteran in navigating benefits and services that are available. Support can include resource coordination and navigation, such as connecting a veteran and their family to community resources, mental health practitioners, grief counsellors, pastoral outreach or other local resources. It also includes a broad range of supports to help veterans and their families adjust to life after service. If there are veterans who need help, I encourage them to contact Veterans Affairs Canada. One of Veterans Affairs Canada’s core priorities is, and always will be, to provide practical and compassionate services to ensure that veterans have access to services tailored to their specific needs. These services include programs designed to promote physical health and well-being, as well as rehabilitation services. Medical costs, as well as compensation for service-related illnesses or injuries, may be covered by Veterans Affairs Canada. I can assure members that every interaction with veterans is designed to help them thrive in life after service. Frontline staff at Veterans Affairs Canada undergo rigorous training to ensure they can guide clients to all the services, benefits, and programs to which they may be entitled. High-quality compassionate support is a foundational part of the covenant our nation has with those who have worn the uniform. Ensuring that those who have served are served well is and always will be an unwavering commitment of this government.”

“The Conservatives are wrong to say our government does not support veterans. We reopened the veterans offices they closed, and we fired a worker who wrongly brought up medically assisted dying with a veteran. We all agree that no one should ever feel pressured into assisted death. We take this issue seriously and must work with the provinces on health care.”

“Mr. Speaker, as you can see, there is a great sense of disappointment from across the way. I am sure we could arrange to have unanimous consent so I would be able to finish the entire speech. Having said that, I am a bit discouraged by the member who just spoke because he is trying to give a false impression. There are two issues that I would like to address: the very serious issue of MAID and the very serious issue of veterans. I had the honour and privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces for just over three years. All of my postings were here in Canada, but I did walk side by side with World War II veterans in parades and had discussions in the legions immediately following the parades, as well as elsewhere. I can tell those who are following the debate that individuals will always carry their own personal opinions in regard to veterans, but to try to label the Government of Canada or the Prime Minister as anti-veteran does a great disservice. If members want to make a comparison, I am all game. I sat in opposition when the leader of the Conservative Party of today was part of the group that cut nine Veterans Affairs offices in Canada. There were no apologies, no sincere, “We have to do this” or anything like that. There was no justification. It took having an election and having the then prime minister, Harper at the time, no longer in office to fix it. One of our first actions was to reinstate those Veterans Affairs offices that the Conservatives closed. I have often seen members across the way try to argue a case that is just not true. We give the deepest amount of respect to the veterans of Canada. We recognize the valuable sacrifice that they have made for our nation. They are, in part, what make us the great nation that we are. I just want to be very clear on that particular point. The parliamentary secretary who spoke prior to me talked about the report that shows that the department took an interest in the issue when it was brought to its attention. In fact, there was a consequence to it, and the department looked into the tens of thousands of files. We need to make sure that, as a government, we are clear that that sort of behaviour, for which the employee was released, is not acceptable. We made it very clear that there is zero tolerance for that sort of attitude. Let us go now to the issue of MAID. Over the years, I have appreciated the different types of debates that take place on the floor of the House of Commons. They vary significantly. I recall the discussions that surrounded the MAID debate. Those who were around will know full well the degree to which the House took the issue seriously. They know of the many mechanisms that were put into place so that we could hear from professionals and from the many individuals experiencing having to make very difficult decisions, whether they were the individual having a medical issue, a family member or a very close friend. Members know of the many hours that were put in at the standing committee and of the overflow of emotions at the standing committee, from all political parties. One of the first issues that we had to deal with when we came into government back in 2015 was the need to bring in MAID legislation because of a Supreme Court decision. I can recall very clearly when we had members standing up on all sides of the House, in tears, talking about personal experiences or reflecting on what was taking place in our standing committees. I believe every single member who has been part of that debate, from the very beginning to this moment today, feels no one should ever feel pressured into a decision about their own health. This is something all of us agree on. This is a very personal decision. We should respect and look to those individuals who have the expertise, the understanding and the compassion. Human life is the most valuable thing we have. I would think that every member of Parliament, no matter what side of the House they are on, understands and appreciates that and would make decisions based on the information that has been put on the table and ultimately on the consensus that has been built. Our courts have been very clear: As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility. Part of that responsibility is to work with other jurisdictions. We can establish laws, but we also need to recognize that provinces have a critical role to play. In fact, it is often a starting point when it goes to a court or a superior court. For example, there is the Province of Quebec and a follow-up decision that came after we had actually passed the legislation. As a government, we have looked at ways we can review and have been open to the idea of changes, if needed. This is not something we should be taking lightly. At the end of the day, I believe it is about listening and responding in a loving, caring way. It is about doing the right thing. In previous debates, we heard a lot about issues like hospice care, palliative care and the types of disability supports that exist. These are all things that were part of the original discussions and that continue to be discussed. We should continue to work at improving the conditions, but that means working with other jurisdictions like the provinces, which are responsible for the administration of health care. There are a lot of things we can do on this issue. I need to wind up, so I will leave it at that for now.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 35 of 100

  Only 8% of this speech directly addressed the bill under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Respect 96 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “he is trying to give a false impression”.

  See full analysis →