OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 283 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Thursday, February 15, 2024 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 15, 2024 DEBATES No. 283 No. 283 N o 283 Volume 151 283 15 02 2024 2024/02/15 10:05:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings

(1005) [ Translation ] Privacy Commissioner

The Speaker :

It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 40(1) of the Privacy Act, a report of the Privacy Commissioner entitled “Special Report to Parliament: Investigation of the RCMP's collection of open-source information under Project Wide Awake”. [ English ] Pursuant to Standing order 108(3)(h), this report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee to Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

It is also my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 40(1) of the Privacy Act, a report from the Privacy Commissioner, entitled “Special Report to Parliament: Investigation of unauthorized disclosures and modifications of personal information held by Canada Revenue Agency and Employment and Social Development Canada resulting from cyber attacks.” [ Translation ] Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

[ English ] Supplementary Estimates (C), 2023-24

A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (

C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker of the House.

Hon. Anita Anand (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the supplementary estimates (C), 2023-24.

Accessibility in Canada

Hon. Kamal Khera (Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the historic, first-ever annual report from Canada's chief accessibility officer. This report highlights the progress our government has made toward building a barrier-free Canada by passing the Accessible Canada Act. It highlights the important work we need to continue to do to make Canada more accessible for persons with disabilities. If allowed, I would like to take a moment to thank Stephanie Cadieux, our chief accessibility officer, for her insight and dedication as we continue to take a whole-of-government approach to building a barrier-free Canada for all.

Canadian Heritage

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and consistent with the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled, “Audiovisual Coproduction Treaty Between the Government of Canada and the Swiss Federal Council”, done at Montreal on November 3, 2023.

Situation in Ukraine

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. Motion I move:

That this House:

(

a) condemn the continuation of Russia's unjustified full-scale aggression against Ukraine;

(

b) call on Russia to end hostilities against Ukraine and withdraw all its troops from the territory of Ukraine;

(

c) call on the Government of Canada to continue to provide military and financial assistance to Ukraine, to conduct the security guarantee agreement with Ukraine in order to increase its capabilities to defend itself from Russian unprovoked aggression;

(

d) support Ukraine's future membership in NATO;

(

e) call on the Government of Canada to strengthen sanctions against Russia, confiscate the assets of Russian oligarchs and Russian sovereign assets for Ukraine's rebuilding;

(

f) call on the Government of Canada to exert all possible efforts and provide necessary diplomatic and financial support to ensure the return of Ukrainian children forcibly deported to Russia; and

(

g) call on the Government of Canada to support efforts to bring those responsible for violations of international law to justice.

(1010) The Speaker :

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. The House has heard the terms of this motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. (Motion agreed to)

Petitions Natural Health Products

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by people in eastern Ontario, including Kingston. They are calling on the House of Commons to immediately repeal the new regulatory constraints on natural health products passed last year, so that many of the Canadians who rely upon them to stay healthy can do so. They ask that the Liberals stop just sucking up to the pharmaceutical companies.

The Speaker :

I remind members when we are presenting petitions, it is to provide a

summary of what is on the petition. I am convinced that was not the wording used on the petition. I will ask all members to please exercise discretion in that regard.

Pornography

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions here. In the first petition, the petitioners would ask that the government follow recommendation no. 2 from the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics' 2021report on MindGeek, which recommends that all content-hosting platforms in Canada verify age and consent prior to uploading content. Bill C-270 , the stopping internet sexual exploitation act, would add two offences to the Criminal Code. The first would require age verification and consent prior to distribution; the second would require removal of material if consent is withdrawn.

As such, these petitioners call on the House of Commons to pass Bill C-270 , the stopping internet sexual exploitation act.

Firearms

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is stating that the Trudeau government has attempted to ban and seize the hunting rifles and shotguns of millions of Canadians; that, the targeting of farmers and hunters does not fight crime; that, the Trudeau government has failed those who participate in the Canadian tradition of sport shooting—

The Speaker :

There is a point of order by the hon. member for Milton.

Mr. Adam van Koeverden :

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is an experienced member, and he knows not to use the first or last names of members of Parliament.

The Speaker :

Although the hon. member is reading from the petition, we do have a firm rule in the House that we only refer to members by their riding names or the executive position they hold. Therefore, I will ask the hon. member to rephrase his presentation of the petition.

Mr. Ted Falk :

Mr. Speaker, this is what the petitioners are saying:

Whereas the member for Papineau 's government has attempted to ban and seize the hunting rifles and shotguns of millions of Canadians, the targeting of farmers and hunters does not fight crime; and that, the Liberal government has failed those who participate in the Canadian tradition of sport shooting. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the current government to stop any and all current and future bans on hunting and sport shooting firearms. This petition is signed by the residents of Bulkley Valley, whose member of Parliament would not present the petition.

The Speaker :

Now we are raising another issue. I am going to ask the hon. member to withdraw that point. The Chair had made it very clear that members cannot make a reference to other members of Parliament. It is a good tradition to have because any member could be a victim of that kind of statement and might not be in the position to defend themselves. Therefore, I ask the hon. member to please withdraw that last sentence.

Mr. Ted Falk :

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the last sentence and leave it as this: This petition comes from residents of Skeena—Bulkley Valley .

(1015) The Speaker :

I thank the hon. member. The hon. member for Abbotsford.

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am here today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Skeena—Bulkley Valley , dozens of whom have signed this petition. They draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Liberal government has attempted to ban and to seize the hunting rifles and shotguns of millions of Canadians. The targeting of farmers and hunters does not fight crime, and the very same Liberal government has failed those who participate in the Canadian tradition of sport shooting. Therefore, the petitioners are calling upon the government to stop any and all current and future bans on hunting and sport shooting firearms.

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. The first petition is on behalf of the good residents of Skeena—Bulkley Valley , the riding adjacent to my beautiful riding of Cariboo—Prince George. The petition states that the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:

Whereas the current government has attempted to ban and seize the hunting rifles and shotguns of millions of Canadians, the targeting of law-abiding farmers and hunters does not fight crime and the government has failed those who participate in the Canadian tradition of sport shooting. Therefore, the undersigned call on the Government of Canada to stop any and all current and future bans on hunting and sport shooting firearms.

Correctional Service of Canada

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to speak regarding the thousands of correctional workers, guards, within our prison system. I ask this today, on behalf of the correctional officers in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon and surrounding areas who are concerned about the prison needle exchange program currently being operated by Correctional Services Canada. I have met with these officers and those who are on the front line. They truly are frontline heroes.

They say that drugs and drug paraphernalia are considered contraband in prisons, yet the Liberal government is forcing our correctional officers to simply turn a blind eye and to allow dangerous drugs to be used inside prisons. They also say that these drugs and contraband needles and syringes can be used as dangerous weapons against the officers and their members. These correctional officers are calling on the government to immediately cancel the prison needle exchange program, to stop permitting the use of illicit drugs in Canadian prisons and to focus efforts on helping inmates recover from their addictions.

I will add, too, that I received an impassioned letter signed by members of a female prison in Alberta who called on us and said that when they are incarcerated, it is their time to get clean, and the prison needle exchange does nothing to facilitate recovery. They ask that the government end its prison needle exchange program.

[ Translation ] Foreign Affairs

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first is signed by more than 70,000 citizens who say that blockades in Gaza have continued for two decades. Since October, air strikes have been carried out in densely populated areas in Lebanon and Gaza, which is a violation of international law. Journalists have been killed by Israeli forces, and thousands of children have died or have been killed in these strikes too.

These 70,000 people are calling on the government to sanction the State of Israel for violating international law, to impose an arms embargo and stop selling arms to Israel and to condemn the war crimes committed against the Palestinian people. My second petition concerns the 2015 arrest of a child, Ahmad Manasra, who was convicted of attempted murder in 2016 in proceedings marred by allegations of torture, and despite the fact that he was below the minimum age of criminal responsibility at the time.

This teenager is still detained and has been in solitary confinement since November 2021, which constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, according to Amnesty International. Hundreds of people have signed this petition and are calling on the government to demand that Israel release Ahmad Manasra.

Corporate Social Responsibility

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, my third petition is from citizens who are concerned about human rights abuses and environmental damage caused by companies based here in Canada. They are calling on the Canadian government to require companies to prevent any negative impact on human and environmental rights throughout their global operations and supply chains. They are asking that these companies be required to exercise due diligence and that there be legal recourse to bring these companies to justice in the event of any human rights violations or environmental destruction.

(1020) [ English ] First Responders Tax Credit

Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition that includes individuals from my riding, especially volunteer firefighters from Wawa. The petitioners indicate that 71% of Canada's total firefighting essential first responders are volunteer firefighters and that there are approximately an additional 8,000 essential search and rescue volunteers, who respond to thousands of incidents each year. They also indicate that the tax code only allows these volunteer first responders to claim a $3,000 tax credit if 200 hours of volunteer service are completed in the calendar year.

That comes up to only about $450 a year, or $2.25 an hour, but if they volunteer more than the 200 hours, the tax credit becomes even less than that. They add that these essential volunteers not only put their lives on the line but also play an important role in keeping the property taxes low and ensuring that communities are safe. The petitioners are calling on the government to support Bill C-310 , which would amend the Income Tax Act by increasing the volunteer firefighting and search and rescue volunteer service credit from $3,000 to $10,000. I am pleased to table this petition.

Human Trafficking

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of British Columbians who are concerned about human trafficking in Canada. The U.S. Department of State's “2023 Trafficking in Persons Report”, or TIP, indicates that “Canada fully meets the minimum standards for the elimination of [human] trafficking.” It also highlights that the range, quality and timely delivery of trafficking-specific services varies across Canada, including persistent funding shortages in certain jurisdictions. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to strengthen the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act to address these shortcomings and to put an end to human trafficking in Canada.

Questions on the Order Paper

Ms. Lisa Hepfner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, Lib.) :

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

The Speaker :

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Privilege Alleged Misleading Comments by the Prime Minister—Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling

The Speaker :

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 6 by the House leader of the official opposition concerning allegedly misleading statements made by the Prime Minister about invitations during the visit to Canada of the President of Ukraine. In his intervention, the House leader argued that the Prime Minister offered misleading responses to questions in the House about the invitation offered to Mr. Yaroslav Hunka for President Zelenskyy's joint address to Parliament.

The member referred to several exchanges where the Prime Minister reiterated that neither he nor his government had any knowledge of the invitation that was made to Mr. Yaroslav Hunka. [ Translation ] He pointed to recent media reports establishing that an invitation was sent under the Prime Minister 's name to the same individual for a separate event to honour President Zelenskyy.

This, according to the member, demonstrated the Prime Minister was, in fact, aware of this individual. [ English ] The House leader of the official opposition claimed that this constituted contempt of Parliament, in the sense that the Prime Minister's statements were misleading, that he knew that they were misleading and that he delivered them with the intention to mislead the House. The House leader asked the Chair to find a prima facie case of privilege so that a motion could be moved to deal with this matter.

His comments were later echoed by the member for La Prairie . [ Translation ] The Government House Leader, for his part, disagreed with the premise of the question of privilege, arguing it was based on speculative assumptions. He argued that the House leader of the official opposition was conflating two separate events, leaving the impression that these events were planned together by the Prime Minister, his office, or both.

The Government House Leader stressed that only the former Speaker had knowledge of the invitation to Yaroslav Hunka to Parliament, and that there were no facts presented that would suggest otherwise. In his view, this was a matter of debate and not a question of privilege.

He also reminded the House that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was currently examining the matter of the invitation of the individual by the former Speaker, and he suggested that the House should allow the committee to complete its work. (1025) [ English ] In the past, members have raised questions of privilege alleging that other members made misleading statements to the House.

As was referenced in the various interventions pertaining to the present case, the Chair considers three essential conditions before making a positive determination that a member has deliberately misled the House: It must be proven that the statement was misleading; it must be established that, when making a statement, the member knew it to be incorrect; and finally, it must be demonstrated that the member intended to mislead the House. [ Translation ] As one of my predecessors stated on February 26, 2015, at pages 11707 of the Debates, and I quote:

The conditions are admittedly and deliberately not easily met. This is because, as Speaker, I must take all members at their word. This underscores the way we function every day in our proceedings; all members rely on this and draw advantage from it.

[ English ] I assessed the facts that were brought to this House through the lens of our stringent three-part test. The Chair is mindful of the recent media reports about another invitation sent to Yaroslav Hunka for a separate event, a government reception in Toronto. While that provides additional information to the general controversy from last September, it was not referenced during the exchanges in the House between different members and the Prime Minister last fall. On January 31, 2008, Speaker Milliken made a useful point about what the Chair can consider for such disputes. He said, at page 2435 of the Debates:

...any dispute regarding the accuracy or appropriateness of a minister’s response to an oral question is a matter of debate; it is not a matter for the Speaker to judge. The same holds true with respect to the breadth of a minister’s answer to a question in the House: this is not for the Speaker to determine.

[ Translation ] Based on the evidence that has been presented and my own review of the proceedings last fall, the Chair has not been able to establish that the statements made by the Prime Minister were in fact deliberately misleading. Accordingly, I do not find there to be a prima facie question of privilege.

The Chair does note that the issue of the second invitation has surfaced in public debate, which offers members many opportunities to raise it in the House, in the context of debate, in any number of ways, including through additional questioning of the Prime Minister during question period. [ English ] There is also an ongoing study of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the issue surrounding Yaroslav Hunka's invitation to and recognition in Parliament on September 22, 2023.

Both the House leader of the official opposition and the government House leader referred to this study in their interventions. It might also offer members an opportunity to raise these new issues that have recently come to light. I thank all members for their attention.

Government Orders Government Orders

[ Translation ] Criminal Code

The Speaker :

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, February 13, 2024, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-62 at third reading stage.

Hon. Anita Anand (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) (for the Minister of Health)

moved that Bill C-62,

An Act to amend

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2 , be read the third time and passed. Bill C-62. Third reading

[ English ]

Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak about Bill C-62 and the extremely important issue of medical assistance in dying, or MAID, and mental illness. I think all members can agree that this is a highly complex, quite sensitive and emotional issue, that raises divergent and deeply held views from the medical community, experts and the public at large. The questions of whether, how and when to expand eligibility for MAID to persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness are difficult; they do not have easy answers.

The federal government believes that eligibility for MAID should be expanded to such persons. However, such an expansion should not be rushed and should not occur before the health care system is ready to safely provide MAID in all cases where it is requested on mental illness grounds. This is why we have introduced Bill C-62 , which proposes to extend the temporary mental illness exclusion by three years, until March 17, 2027. The bill also includes a provision requiring a parliamentary review prior to that date.

As members will recall, in 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded in the Carter case that the Criminal Code’s absolute prohibition on physician-assisted death was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that physician-assisted dying must be permitted in some circumstances, namely, for competent adults who clearly consent to the termination of life and who have a grievous and irremediable medical condition. This decision led to the legalization of MAID in Canada one year later, in 2016, through Parliament’s enactment of former Bill C-14 .

Our original MAID law limited eligibility for MAID to competent adults with an eligible medical condition whose natural death was reasonably foreseeable. Our MAID framework was added to the Criminal Code and was made up of a stringent set of eligibility criteria, as well as procedural safeguards to prevent error and abuse in the provision of MAID. A few years later, the “reasonable foreseeability of natural death” eligibility criterion was challenged in Quebec; in 2019, it was declared to be unconstitutional by the Superior Court of Quebec in the Truchon decision.

As this was a trial-level decision, it was only applicable in Quebec. Nevertheless, the Attorney General of Canada did not appeal the decision; instead, the federal government made the policy decision to expand eligibility for MAID. This led to Parliament’s enactment of former Bill C-7 in 2021, which expanded eligibility for MAID to persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. This resulted in the removal of the eligibility criterion that a person’s death be reasonably foreseeable and the creation of two sets of procedural safeguards for the lawful provision of MAID.

The first track of safeguards applies to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable; the second, more robust, track applies to persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. This second set of safeguards was created in recognition of the fact that requests for MAID by persons who are not at end of life are more complex. This is why a minimum of 90 days must be taken to assess a person for eligibility for MAID when their natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. This is not a reflection period; it is a minimum assessment period.

This safeguard aims to respond to the additional challenges and concerns that may arise in the context of MAID assessments for persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. This includes whether the person’s suffering is caused by factors other than their medical condition, as well as whether there are ways of addressing their suffering other than through MAID.

(1030) This second set of safeguards also requires that two practitioners be satisfied that the person meets all the eligibility criteria, and if neither of them has expertise in the medical condition causing the person suffering, one of them must consult with a practitioner who does. Involving a practitioner with the relevant expertise aims to ensure that all treatment options are identified and explored.

Practitioners are also required to inform the person of available counselling services, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care; to offer them consultations with the relevant professionals; and to ensure that the person has given serious consideration to such alternative means to alleviate their suffering. Although this does not require a person to undertake treatments that may be unacceptable to them, it requires that they fully explore and weigh the risks and benefits of available treatment options.

Former Bill C-7 , as originally introduced, permanently excluded eligibility for MAID on the basis of a mental illness alone. This was not because of the incorrect and harmful assumption that individuals who have a mental illness lack decision-making capacity or because of a failure to appreciate the severity of the suffering a mental illness can cause. Rather, this was done because of concerns about the inherent risks and complexities of permitting MAID for individuals who suffer solely from mental illness.

During its consideration of the bill, the Senate made an amendment that added a sunset provision that would repeal the mental illness exclusion 18 months later. The House of Commons accepted the amendment in principle, but changed the date of repeal to two years; in other words, the provision of MAID based on a mental illness alone was set to become lawful on March 17, 2023. The decision to temporarily maintain the exclusion of eligibility was based on the recognition that additional study would be required to address the risks and complexities of permitting MAID in these circumstances.

This is why the former bill also included a requirement for an independent expert review respecting recommended protocols, guidance and safeguards to apply to such requests for MAID. Former Bill C-7 also required the creation of a joint parliamentary committee tasked with conducting a comprehensive review of the Criminal Code's MAID provisions and other MAID-related issues, including MAID and mental illness. The committee undertook this important work, and its interim report, which focused on MAID and mental illness, was tabled in June 2022.

It urged the federal government to collaborate with regulators, professional associations, institutional committees and the provinces and territories to ensure that the recommendations of the expert panel were implemented in a timely manner. The committee's second report was tabled in February 2023. The majority view expressed was that eligibility for MAID on the basis of a mental illness alone should be permitted.

However, the final report also raised a key concern that more time was needed for standards to be developed and training to be undertaken before the law should permit a mental illness to ground a request for MAID. The federal government recognized the significant progress that had been made by the provinces and territories, stakeholders and the medical community in preparing for the expansion. However, it ultimately concluded more time was needed. This is why we introduced Bill C-39 , and Parliament enacted it. It extended the exclusion by one year, until March 17, 2024.

This extension aimed to provide additional time for the dissemination and uptake of key resources by the medical and nursing communities. We thought it essential to prepare for the safe assessment and provision of MAID in all cases where a mental illness grounds a request for MAID. The committee expressed support for the extension in its second report.

(1035) I want to take a moment to recognize the work that the federal government has done during this extension to support the fulfillment of some of the expert panel’s recommendations. For instance, we amended the regulations for the monitoring of MAID last year to ensure comprehensive data collection and reporting. Such changes allow for data collection related to race, indigenous identity and disability of persons requesting MAID. These changes came into force in January 2023, and the first set of data will be captured in Health Canada’s 2024 annual report on MAID.

Moreover, Health Canada convened an independent MAID practice standards task group to develop a practice standard for MAID. In March 2023, the model MAID practice standard and supporting documents that provide guidance to support complex MAID assessments were released. Finally, Health Canada supported the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers in the development of a Canadian MAID curriculum, which was launched in September 2023. In Canada, certain aspects of MAID fall under federal jurisdiction and others fall under provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

The federal government is responsible for the criminal law aspect,

whereas the provinces and territories are responsible for the implementation of MAID within their health care delivery systems. Impressive progress has been made in preparing for the expansion by the March 2024 deadline. However, the provinces and territories have all expressed that they are not yet ready. For this reason, we are proposing to extend the temporary mental illness exclusion for another three years, until March 17, 2027.

The extension would allow more time for the provinces and territories, and their partners, to prepare their health care systems by implementing regulatory guidance and developing additional resources for their medical and nurse practitioners. It would also provide more time for medical and nurse practitioners to become familiar with the available training and supports. Our ultimate goal is to help ensure that the necessary protections are in place to protect the interests of individuals who may seek MAID on the basis of a mental illness alone. We believe that this issue should not be rushed.

Eligibility for MAID should not be expanded until the health care system is ready to safely provide MAID in these complex circumstances. I urge all members to support the bill so our partners can get this right.

(1040) Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I have sat through much of this debate, on the committee as well. The provinces and territories did not ask for a three-year pause; they asked for an indeterminate pause because they are not ready. Industry is not ready. The health care professionals cannot come to any conclusions. As a matter of fact, Dr. Gaind, a professor of psychiatry at U of T, summed it up best at the committee last night.

He said, “once again, there is no evidence that shows we can predict irremediability in mental illness, and it is vastly different from other medical conditions and neurodegenerative diseases...but we have to remember what MAID is about. It is about us predicting who will never get better, and we can't do that. And if we can't do that with mental illness, we would be providing death under false pretenses.” He equated it to being much like flipping a coin to choose who could get better and who could not. MAID would simply be killing people who could possibly get better. What would my hon. colleague say to that?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi :

Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I were both at the committee last night, which heard from quite a few experts on MAID. I think it was fairly clear that there was a difference of opinion as to the readiness of the system. There were some experts who believe that MAID for people with mental illness could be provided as early as March 17, 2024. However, the member is right. There is a letter from seven provinces and three territories that have asked for an extension to the period.

The government feels that a three-year period is the right amount of time for the medical profession and the provinces and territories to be ready to be able to provide MAID to people with mental illness, with appropriate safeguards.

(1045) Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, the issue of what guidelines should be in place to allow someone to die is perhaps one of the most profound things we have to discuss. Parliament agreed to move forward with MAID, and we expected that we were going to get a review. Instead there was a Quebec provincial court decision, the Truchon case. The federal government did not appeal the decision; it just rewrote the law. Then the Senate, an absolutely unaccountable, dismal group as far as I am concerned, decided to just throw in an arbitrary date to allow people with mental illness to die, and the government accepted it.

We are now scrambling, with a month left. The government is saying it is going to put some guardrails in place to punt it down the road. Why is the government not taking the issue seriously? The member for Abbotsford 's bill would have dealt with this. The government has put us in this situation, and it is not credible.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi :

Madam Speaker, I will take exception to the member's comment because a tremendous amount of work has been done to create the appropriate safeguards. Not only are there legislative safeguards in place in the Criminal Code, which I alluded to in my remarks, but there are also safeguards being developed within the medical profession. We need to make sure we listen to our health care providers, those who deliver health care at the provincial and territorial level, and extend the date for the change in eligibility criteria for three years so MAID could be administered with all the appropriate safeguards in place.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, we just witnessed a great NDP-Conservative coalition. The member is reiterating the Conservatives' argument to the effect that the ruling in Gladu and Truchon was not challenged before the Supreme Court. However, the reason why it was not challenged before the Supreme Court is that people were suffering and Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon deserved to have relief. This was based on the Carter decision. However, the NDP voted against Bill C-14 , which did not go far enough. I do not know why the member is being so inconsistent today.

I would like to know whether the member is aware that, basically, his party is trying hard not to say that it lacks courage, that it is backing down when it comes to mental illness and that it is throwing the ball back into the court of the Conservatives who, as they announced, are going to do away with all of this.

[ English ]

Mr. Yasir Naqvi :

Madam Speaker, the government is taking the most prudent approach in making sure people get the care they need. This is a very sensitive issue that requires that we work closely with medical professionals to ensure that all the appropriate safeguards, training and associated curriculum are in place. If there is doubt, as we see by the request that we create an extension, it is only prudent for the government to do so. That is why we are encouraging all members to support Bill C-62 and extend the pause on eligibility for MAID on the sole basis of mental illness by three years.

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, as the provinces and territories are not ready to implement medical assistance in dying for people with mental disorders, personally I am also not ready. I could not vote for something like it right now. I am taken by the case of a woman, E.F., who was granted the right to have her life taken with medical assistance in 2016, after reports that she suffered from severe conversion disorder. Nobody could read the media accounts of this and not understand that there are some people for whom life is clearly not worth living anymore.

Would that provision, in the Court of Appeal decision in Alberta, still provide a way forward for the people who are in a terrible condition right now and who need relief?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi :

Madam Speaker, our number one job is to protect people's rights. Given that the various decisions of the courts have said that it is a person's right to determine their end of life, we need to make sure that right is protected. Of course we need to ensure that they get all of the care they need in order to be able to recover, but as the courts have said, if their suffering is irremediable, they should have that option available because it is a matter of their rights.

That is why we are working so hard, along with our provincial and territorial partners, to ensure that all the right safeguards and all of the right training are in place before MAID is extended to people whose sole underlying condition is mental illness.

(1050) Hon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, we know we are in this situation because a radical justice minister and a radical government have pushed this agenda. I want to get the member's thoughts on this quote from 32 law professors. They state:

We disagree as law professors that providing access to MAiD for persons whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness is constitutionally required...as Minister Lametti has repeatedly stated.

I asked the minister, when he appeared at the justice committee, who was right, these 32 legal experts or him. He said, of course, that he was right. I want to ask the member this. Does he believe that these 32 legal experts are right or that the former minister of justice was right?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi :

Madam Speaker, this is a very sensitive issue. It is highly emotional and complex. I would urge all members that calling names and ascribing labels is not the responsible way forward. Canadians are looking to us to make responsible decisions. That is why it is incumbent upon us to work with everyone, including the legal community. The hon. member across the way knows that if we talk to 10 lawyers we will get 10 different legal opinions on any matter. Most importantly, we need to work with health care professionals and understand from them what is required with respect to all the appropriate safeguards.

Last but not least are the provinces and territories, which are primarily responsible for delivering health care. We need to listen to them carefully, and they are asking for an extension. That is what Bill C-62 is doing.

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes .

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to split his time?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Hon. Ed Fast :

Madam Speaker, it should have never come to this. Had the government properly consulted with Canadians, this expansion of MAID would never have seen the light of day. Instead, what we now have is MAID in Canada, a triumph of ideology over common sense. The Liberal government's recent decision to further delay, but not cancel, the expansion of MAID to the mentally ill reflects an unserious approach to this all-important life-and-death issue. MAID was originally designed for those whose physical illness was incurable and caused intolerable pain, and where death was reasonably foreseeable.

However, the Liberals soon eliminated the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable and then went far beyond that by quickly agreeing to a demand from the unelected Senate to expand assisted suicide to include those suffering from mental illness. The government has signalled a willingness to go even further by including children in its deadly scheme. As we predicted back in 2016, when the Prime Minister introduced medically assisted death to Canadians, our country is now hurtling down a steep and slippery slope.

Despite the accusations of fearmongering and exaggerating that have been levelled at us, history has proven that Conservative MPs were right. Over eight short years, our country has moved from banning assisted suicide to having the most permissive and dangerous regime in the world. The statistics are staggering. Last year, over 13,000 Canadian deaths were attributable to MAID, a 31% increase over the year before. That is without MAID being made available for mental illness. MAID is now the fourth leading cause of death in the country.

When compared to other jurisdictions where MAID is available, like California, Canada's assisted suicide deaths far exceed those of other jurisdictions. That should really concern us, as it reflects a reckless implementation of MAID. Imagine how many more thousands of deaths will be added every single year, should the Liberal plan to include the mentally disordered come into force. Of increasing concern are the growing number of cases in which MAID has been improperly approved and administered outside of what the criminal law currently allows.

Here are just a few of them: There is a Hamilton man who would rather die than struggle with poverty, as reported in the Hamilton Spectator Reporter; the Cape Breton woman who sought MAID over lengthy workers' compensation delays; the Ontario quadriplegic mother who applied for MAID over a lack of access to disability supports; the former paralympian who told MPs that the veterans affairs department offered her assisted death instead of help; and the Winnipeg woman who chose to die through MAID because of her futile struggle for home care.

There is the case of Donna Duncan from my own city of Abbotsford, who was euthanized because mental health support was not available when she needed it the most. Indeed, she received MAID without her daughters, Christie and Alicia, knowing about it until after the fact. They had no chance to say goodbye to their mother. Then there is Kathrin Mentler, who lives with chronic depression and suicidality. Feeling particularly vulnerable, she went to Vancouver General Hospital looking for psychiatric help for feelings of hopelessness she could not shake.

Instead, a clinician told her there would be a long wait to see a psychiatrist and that the health care system is broken. That was followed by a jarring question: “Have you considered MAID?” There is the case of Sophia, who suffered from severe sensitivity to smoke and chemicals, triggering rashes, difficulty breathing and blinding headaches. She died by MAID after a frantic effort by friends, supporters and even her doctors to get her safe and affordable housing in Toronto.

She begged officials for assistance in finding a home away from the smoke and chemicals wafting through her apartment. “The government sees me as expendable trash, a complainer, useless and a pain in the ass,” she said in a video filmed eight days before her death.

(1055) Canadians are dying unnecessarily and under circumstances that scream out for reconsideration of how far Canadians are prepared to go in euthanizing their fellow citizens. It has become stunningly clear how little the government consulted on MAID expansion. Mental health professionals are only now becoming aware of the government's plans to euthanize persons suffering from mental disorders.

Psychiatrists, psychologists, clinical counsellors and suicide prevention experts overwhelmingly oppose this expansion, and only recently has the government begun to consult with indigenous communities, our fellow Canadians who are at the greatest risk from an expansive application of MAID. The provinces and territories, as has already been mentioned, have sent a joint letter to the government, saying that they are not ready for MAID expansion. Indeed, they have called not just for a delay but for an indefinite suspension of the government's plans.

Ordinary Canadians, of course, have repeatedly said they do not favour expanding assisted suicide to include the mentally ill. What is worse is that this expansion is taking place at a time when Canada faces compounding national crises in mental health, palliative care, opioid addiction, affordability and homelessness. The skyrocketing cost of living has only exacerbated these profound social challenges.

The government's reckless approach to MAID also flies in the face of Parliament's stated commitment to suicide prevention, including the recently activated 988 suicide helpline, which is thanks to my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George . How can members claim to support suicide prevention efforts, when at the same time they are promoting state-facilitated suicide? Clearly, the government's contradictory approach has been one in which blind ideology has trumped common sense and reason.

More troubling is that the message to our most vulnerable Canadians, the mentally disordered, the opioid addicted, the homeless and hungry, and the veterans, is that their government would rather euthanize them than provide them with the mental health and social supports they need to live productive, meaningful lives. The utilitarian implications of the government's approach are deeply disturbing and profoundly wrong on so many levels. By any other definition, expanding MAID to include the most vulnerable is nihilism hiding behind the fig leaf of compassion.

In a briefing recently, Liberal government officials indicated that they are still hell-bent on expanding MAID to the mentally ill. It is just that their masters, namely the Prime Minister and his Liberal colleagues across the floor, do not want to face the voters' wrath for placing their corrosive ideology above the interests and welfare of the most vulnerable among us. That is why they, the Liberals, have kicked the ball down the road to avoid the political consequences. We can and should do better.

What is really required and what Canadians are demanding of the Prime Minister and his justice minister is that they put a full stop to this madness now. There being no national consensus on MAID expansion, completely rescinding this policy is the only reasonable and responsible thing to do.

(1100) Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the member and I sat on the third edition of the special joint committee together. I know the member is a lawyer, and my question is really a legal one. I agree with the recommendation of the committee for an indefinite delay, but does he expect that this case will come up at the Supreme Court eventually? What does he think the reasoning of the court might be, given that the definition of irremediability in law is very different from irremediability in clinical medical practice, which requires a bit more certainty? There is a tension between the two, so I would be interested in his perspective on that.

Hon. Ed Fast :

Madam Speaker, let me first of all thank that member for bringing such a thoughtful approach to our work at the committee and now here in the House. I agree with him that we should have an indefinite pause on this expansion, but with respect to the Supreme Court of Canada, I think it would be wrong to presume what the court might read into any additional changes that might happen. We do know that the federal government refused to appeal lower court decisions, like the EF decision in Alberta and the Truchon case in Quebec, to the Supreme Court of Canada, which is where this type of final decision should rest.

I expect fully that eventually a case will make its way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada will opine whether the Carter decision should go beyond just the incurable, intolerable illnesses where death was reasonably foreseeable and should in fact include vulnerable populations like the mentally ill.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, my colleague complains that people are accusing him of fearmongering, but he is unable to use the right technical terms to debate this issue. The Council of Canadian Academies does not refer to children. Referring to children in general shows a lack of intellectual rigour in a debate like this. The right term is “mature minors”. For example, at the age of 15, Charles Gignac was diagnosed with a cancer that ate his bones. He was fit as a fiddle, an athlete with a very strong heart. He suffered for two years because he was not eligible for medical assistance in dying.

He requested medical assistance in dying. He passed away at 17 years and 10 months, without MAID, in pain and anguish. What treatment did he receive? He was given palliative sedation because no one was able to relieve his suffering. After he received palliative sedation, his loved ones watched him spend 24 hours in an agitated, delirious state before he died. Is that what my colleague calls compassion?

(1105) [ English ]

Hon. Ed Fast :

Madam Speaker, I am deeply disturbed that individual would actually promote assisted death for children. Let us not forget this. The suggestion is not only that this would be assisted death for mature minors. There is the suggestion that parents would not have the final say over whether their children would be euthanized. This is appalling. Is this the state of our country, where we have parties in the House of Commons actually promoting the deaths of children when in fact they can be helped and treated? We can do better as a country; I know we can.

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague shares my concern that we are now 30-some days away from an arbitrary deadline that was imposed. We passed a national palliative care motion that I brought in 2016, and nothing was done. In 2019, we brought forward the national suicide prevention strategy that was based on the work in Nunavut. Everybody signed off, and nothing was done.

Now we are being told that we should be making it easier for people who are suffering with mental illness, people who are on the streets, people using opioids, people who are hopeless, and that we should be fast-tracking that rather than putting in place the protections needed to protect people. What are my hon. colleague's thoughts are on that?

Hon. Ed Fast :

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his work at the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, where we did excellent work in coming up with a recommendation, which unfortunately the government did not choose to follow in its entirety. We had called for an indefinite pause. Unfortunately, the government felt an arbitrary three years was sufficient. To answer his question, I have great concern the government's promises to deliver improved palliative care supports to the provinces and to deliver improved mental health supports to them have not been fulfilled. Now people are asking for death because they are not getting those supports. That truly is sad.

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, we come here to debate the most serious of issues, and we are faced with one of those issues today. I want to start by being very up front. I do not think that a pause is appropriate for the expansion of medical assistance in dying to those whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness. There must be an abolition of the expansion to those who are most vulnerable and to those who are suffering. We have heard that the Liberal government is pushing this off to avoid political consequences in the next election, and it is shameful.

However, it does present an opportunity, because a Conservative government would not allow the expansion of doctor-assisted death to people for whom our country should be offering hope and help. The concrete solutions that have been put forward by Conservative members have been heard in the House, including by my hon. colleague from Cariboo—Prince George with the 988 suicide prevention hotline, which he shamed the government into taking action on. While it took that shame for the Liberals to act, it does offer some help to those who desperately need it. The hon. member for Abbotsford spoke just before I did.

His Bill C-314 would have scrapped doctor-assisted death for those whose sole underlying medical condition was mental illness, but the government rejected that. With respect to the provinces and territories, which are constitutionally obligated to deliver on health care, the majority of their heads of government have had to call for the government to stop this reckless march forward. While I will vote in favour of a pause, I cannot abide anyone believing that I am okay with this continuing three years from now.

This debate is following the Liberals' pulling the emergency brake on the reckless expansion of MAID just a year ago. Given the chance, there would be a wide expansion of MAID, and not just to those who are suffering from mental illness and addiction. This expansion of doctor-assisted suicide cannot be carried out safely or justly. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the irremediability of a mental disorder in individual cases, meaning we cannot say, with the certainty that is required in a matter that truly is life or death, whether a person suffering from mental illness will get better.

In appearing before the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, on which I sat as a vice-chair, Dr. Jitender Sareen, a physician in the department of psychiatry at the University of Manitoba, testified, said:

We strongly recommend an extended pause on expanding MAID to include mental disorders as the sole underlying medical condition in Canada, because we're simply not ready. In our experience, people recover from long periods—“long” meaning decades—of suffering with depression, anxiety, schizophrenia and addictions with appropriate evidence-based treatments. We strongly believe that making MAID available for mental disorders will facilitate unnecessary deaths in Canada and negatively impact suicide prevention efforts. The clinical role is to instill hope, not to lead patients toward death.

Dr. Sareen went on to say:

Unlike physical conditions that drive MAID requests, we do not understand the biological basis of mental disorders and addictions, but we know that they can resolve over time. The real discrimination and lack of equity is not providing care for people with mental disorders and addictions.

I could not agree more with the doctor.

(1110) We have a moral obligation in our society to ensure that every person is treated with the inherent dignity and value with which they are created, everyone. They do not get that when we offer them death instead of help and hope, treatment and care. Psychiatrists and even the Prime Minister's so-called expert panel cannot know if someone is going to recover from mental illness, and this under a government where wait times for psychiatric treatment can be over half of a decade.

If the government goes ahead with this, people who would have gotten better will not get the chance, because they will have been killed at the hand of the government. Further, it is difficult for a clinician to distinguish between a rational request for medical assistance in dying where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition and one motivated by suicidal ideation. On the question of suicidality, Dr. Sareen said:

...there is no clear operational definition differentiating between when someone is asking for MAID and when someone is asking for suicide when they're not dying. Internationally, this is the differentiation. If somebody is dying, then it can be considered MAID. When they're not dying, it is considered suicide.

On the same question, Dr. Tarek Rajji stated, “There is no clear way to separate suicidal ideation or a suicide plan from requests for MAID.” With the line being blurred between suicidal ideation and so-called rational requests for medical assistance in dying, evidence from jurisdictions that have assisted suicide for mental disorders, both suicides and medically facilitated death go up. We cannot move forward with this dangerous game that the government is playing, the plan of moving full steam ahead no matter what the cost.

The minister said that the Liberals had the moral imperative to move ahead with an assisted suicide regime. Hopelessness and misery, that is their imperative. A moral imperative? It is immoral. This is the same government that has degraded life in the country to the point where an entire generation of people is giving up hope. Two million Canadians are lined up at food banks a month and once former middle-class families are living in their cars. People are being offered MAID instead of a wheelchair, after serving our country and going to veterans affairs for help.

People are being offered MAID at routine doctor appointments. People are seeking MAID because they cannot afford housing. People are seeking MAID because they cannot get the psychiatric care they need. This is blind ideology ahead of evidence. It is death on demand for any reason. Depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, personality disorders and addictions will all become justifications for death under the Liberal government if this plan is allowed to be carried forward. A new generation of addicts will have been created, by normalizing and legalizing opioids that are being peddled to our children.

The MAID regime seems like it will become the government's plan for addictions. Rather than offering treatment and a chance to get better to people who are suffering, they are being offered death. There is hope yet, if we pass this bill, that we could stop the expansion of MAID to people who are suffering. We can make a commitment, as the representatives of Canadians, to deliver on the health, help, hope and treatment that Canadians deserve, that every human person deserves. Dignity, respect, hope and life, that is what we are going to have to vote to protect. I am proud to stand and vote in support of life.

(1115) Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, as an advanced democratic country, Canada sometimes brings in legislation on issues that have never been dealt with before. Sometimes Canada is one of the first countries in the world to deal with these types of issues. When we bring in legislation that fundamentally affects every single Canadian, sometimes we have to look at it again to see how we can serve Canadians, whether we are stepping on the toes of the fundamental rights of Canadians. Earlier the hon. member for Abbotsford said that there was no national consensus.

I would like to ask the member whether he agrees with me that due to the different religious beliefs, different religious faiths and philosophies, we cannot have national unanimity on issues like this.

Mr. Michael Barrett :

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that this is a question of religion. I think it is simply a question of humanity and how we care for the most vulnerable among us. This is an imperative that we have as parliamentarians. Ensuring that we care for the least of us, those who are most in need of our help, is the highest calling we can answer. To allow MAID for folks whose only medical condition is mental illness would be an abdication of that. Allowing state-sanctioned death, or doctor-assisted suicide in that case, is an abdication of our responsibilities to the most vulnerable, regardless of one's beliefs or creed.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, Voltaire said that fanaticism pretends to be the child of religion. I think we have proof of that again today, unfortunately. Our colleague stated the Conservatives' position on freedom of choice, on medical assistance in dying and on providing relief to people who are suffering. The Conservatives want to abolish medical assistance in dying. That is what we just heard. The Liberals claim their position is different, but I cannot tell the difference. They are going to put the decision off for three years, but by then, the Conservatives will be in power and can decide to abolish it.

Then there is the NDP, which is applauding that. Is the real coalition basically just the Ottawa coalition?

(1120) [ English ]

Mr. Michael Barrett :

Madam Speaker, we have an epidemic in this country of people who are suffering from addiction. We have people who are suffering from mental illness. I am not going to be shamed by anyone who wants to call me a fanatic for saying that we need to protect the vulnerable. If there are members in this place, and I abhor the thought, who would rather have the government kill people than give them the treatment they deserve, have it abandon its responsibility, then I genuinely hope we do not elect anyone to this place who represents Canadians who believe that. I certainly do not. I believe in helping the most in need.

[ Translation ]

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on a point of order.

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Madam Speaker, I will not stand for anyone saying that I am telling the government to kill people. I demand an immediate apology.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

That is a point of debate. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on another point of order.

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Madam Speaker, it is not a point of debate. Words have meaning. Saying that I am encouraging the government to kill people has no place in a debate. The member can say he disagrees with me, but he cannot say that.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I will check the record and get back to the House if necessary. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[ English ]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I would challenge the member. The government is not killing people, but it is failing to put in place protections for people. There is a difference, and our language does matter, but we need to have a strong support for everyone. To simply say that people are being killed does not help our conversation. I would ask my colleague to reflect on that.

Mr. Michael Barrett :

Madam Speaker, through action or inaction, the result is the same. By failing to help the vulnerable, by failing to offer those supports, we are condemning those people. The government is condemning those people to death. To take a positive action and offer them suicide in place of help and treatment, well, we can take a look at a thesaurus and decide whether or not that is to be described as the government killing them, but it is not reaching out a hand in help, and that is exactly what government should do.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I am still looking into what was said a while ago, but I do want to remind members to be very careful with some of the wording they are using because it is not quite proper to be using that type of language in the House. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Joliette has the floor.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I would first like to ask for unanimous consent to share my time with my colleague and friend, the member for Montcalm , who is a leading expert on this subject.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to share his time?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie :

Madam Speaker, medical assistance in dying is a topic as crucial as it is sensitive. By choosing to delay debate for three years, the Liberal government is aligning itself with the Conservatives, with the blessing of the NDP, to ensure this debate will never happen again. That is highly irresponsible. The Bloc Québécois was in favour of a one-year delay, but three years pushes it to after the next election. In other words, we will not be discussing this issue for a very long time. Meanwhile, Quebec has passed a law that allows advance requests.

Specifically, it covers people suffering from neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. However, Quebec’s law is blocked until the Criminal Code is amended by the House. The entire National Assembly of Quebec has asked Ottawa to amend the Criminal Code accordingly. Although the Quebec law allows advance requests, the Criminal Code does not. This leaves doctors open to prosecution. That is why we presented an amendment addressing this issue. Again, the Liberal government, the Conservatives and the New Democrats chose to oppose it.

Again, Quebeckers are reminded that we cannot decide for ourselves, even when there is consensus, and that our neighbour will decide for us. Furthermore, the government did all this by imposing a super gag order, with the NDP's support. It wanted to muzzle the House and put off debate well into the future while rejecting Quebec’s unanimous request. So much for democracy here. Here we are reviewing a bill that seeks to delay choices involving mental disorders and that says nothing about neurodegenerative diseases and advance requests, unlike Quebec’s law.

All this is happening three years after Bill C-7 was passed. Regardless of what other parties choose to do, we continue and will continue to ask that the Criminal Code be aligned with Quebec’s Act Respecting End-of-Life Care by allowing advance requests. Can I ask for a bit more compassion in the House? Is it so complicated to change the Criminal Code to give effect to the Quebec law with respect to advance requests for people suffering from serious and incurable neurocognitive disorders?

In an attempt to convince my colleagues of the importance of Quebec's request and the urgency of the issue, I would like to read a very moving letter sent by one of my constituents. She talks about what her mom, Jacinthe Arnault, went through. Here is what the letter says:

At age 56, my mother, Jacinthe Arnaud, a clinical nurse, was diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer's. Nothing in her family history could have predicted that this huge black cloud would darken the rest of her life. The second thing she told me in 2019 after being diagnosed was:

“Promise me you won't let me die in a long-term care home. Promise me, Cath, that you'll let me go with dignity.” Back then, the MAID legislation did not allow for people with cognitive impairments to access this type of care.

I scrambled to learn about the subject, to talk with MPs, to contribute to the improvement of the legislation at the National Assembly and to get informed about what was being done in other countries. What I found was that we were in a dead end—even if my mother repeated her request week after week, I could not see how I could grant her the end she was hoping for. In 2021, when the “imminent death” requirement was taken out of the legislation, there was a glimmer of hope. Fortunately—or unfortunately—my mother wasn't 100% aware of her condition and wasn't ready to let us go and choose to die, at the risk of losing her chance to die with dignity.

The disease progressed very quickly, much faster than the legislative work to expand MAID. In early 2022, we had to watch over my mother almost constantly as her cognitive abilities, her memory and even her motor skills became more and more impaired. She still had enough clear-mindedness to ask her geriatrician for MAID. We started the procedure. It was very stressful not to know whether my mom would change her mind right until the very end, not because she didn't want MAID anymore, but because the disease would have made her unable to understand her condition and where she was headed.

Do you know that the legislation imposes a 90-day waiting time before MAID can be granted to patients with cognitive impairments? As a nurse myself, and seeing my mother get worse and worse every day, I could not see how she would still have a clear mind after 90 days. After several discussions with the prescribing physician, we were able to move up the date.

Why was my mother's credibility called into question? Why do patients with cognitive impairments have to wait before receiving MAID, but not patients with other incurable diseases? Requesting in advance to die with dignity is a very personal and legitimate choice, according to my mother and me. It is a decision that should, in a perfect world, be made quickly after diagnoses of this nature. Considering that neurodegenerative diseases evolve very differently from one patient to the next, wouldn't it be logical to allow these patients to request a dignified death in advance?

(1125) Not knowing if she would be allowed to die put my mother under incredible stress. And let me tell you, as a mother of two young children, I too was under a tremendous amount of stress, not knowing if my mother would pass away or if I would have to institutionalize her within a few months, which would have been a very difficult choice to make, considering the wishes she had so forcefully expressed.

During the last years of her career, my mother worked in the hemodialysis department at the Joliette hospital. She wanted to keep helping others. On May 4, 2022, she died in an operating room at the Joliette hospital, with her by her loved ones at her side. She saved three people. Both of her kidneys and her lungs live on somewhere in Canada. We're extremely proud of that.

I'm so proud of her and of us.

I wish with all my heart that ADVANCE requests for MAID were allowed. All these people who are sick now and who would like to die with dignity are depending on the legislation to be changed quickly.

Best wishes,

Catherine Joly

I thank Ms. Joly for her letter from the bottom of my heart. I agree with her, because I also hope with all my heart that advance requests for MAID will become an option. As she says, it is a matter of dignity. As she points out, everything depends on how quickly the legislation can be changed. Quebec has changed its legislation. The one step left is to harmonize it with the Criminal Code. I sincerely hope that Ms. Joly's words have helped convince my colleagues about how important it is to make this change and make it quickly. I thank her.

(1130) [ English ]

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, Canada is one of the most advanced democracies in the world. That is why we bring in legislation, some of which is quite unique. In Canadian history, over all 155 years, this is the first time legislation like this has been brought forward. Whenever we bring forward legislation that fundamentally affects every single Canadian's life, is it not important that we relook at it, modify it if required, take a pause, check to make sure everything is okay and patiently advance it instead of rushing it through? I would like the hon. member's views on that.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie :

Madam Speaker, I would like to say two things. First, there is unanimous consensus in Quebec. All parties in the Quebec National Assembly voted to pass a law, but it has no force or effect because it is being blocked. Quebec is asking that its law be aligned with the Criminal Code so it can come into effect in Quebec alone. That is what we are asking. It is not complicated. The government tells us this is very important, but it chose to do nothing and kick it down the road, even though we need to act quickly. Second, the decision to delay all debate in the House for three years brings us to after the election.

Projections indicate that the Liberals will not form a majority government. In all likelihood we will never discuss this again, we will never come back to this debate. I think that is irresponsible. We first dealt with Bill C-7 in 2021. That is already three years ago. What has the government done in three years? It came up with the current bill, which says they will ensure the debate will never be over. We think that is irresponsible. I beg the government to at least try to harmonize the Criminal Code with the unanimous will of Quebec. It is a matter of dignity. My society and my nation are ready.

However, they are being blocked by their neighbour, who is choosing not to act. I am asking them to act.

[ English ]

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the hon. member read a letter from a constituent. Conservatives also receive letters that speak in a different way about the dignity they look for and how they want their lives to be treated based on MAID and the new law that will be put in place. If the hon. member's emphasis is on the humanitarian and compassionate side of this, would it not apply to every Canadian rather than just narrowing it to Quebec? I understand and respect that he represents a Quebec riding, but we need to look at something that applies to all Canadians. I think that is the purpose behind what we are debating today.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie :

Madam Speaker, from my perspective and that of my party, the substance of Bill C-62 is to ensure that we never discuss this again. By choosing to extend the exclusion by three years, there could well be a Conservative government, possibly a majority government, in power. I would be amazed if that government chose to follow up and move in the same direction. Let me remind my hon. colleague that Canada is a federation that includes several nations. The Quebec nation has a unanimous position on advance requests but cannot implement it because the federal government refuses to amend the Criminal Code.

We understand that the rest of Canada may have other debates. That is the idea of a federation, to bridge different cultures and perspectives. There is unanimity in Quebec. We are not asking for a unilateral approach or for the Quebec model to apply from coast to coast, but for Ottawa to stop blocking what Quebec has unanimously decided.

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I simply want to remind my colleague that, yesterday, I voted in favour of the amendment for advance requests because there is a political and social consensus in Quebec society. I think that the message for the federal government is to find a compromise and a solution so as not to prevent Quebec from moving forward. However, we must also not block the bill, because there is no medical or scientific consensus on the issue of mental health as the sole underlying condition. I think that it is important to meet the March 17 deadline and to ensure that we can reflect together on this issue because there is no medical or scientific consensus.

(1135) Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie :

Madam Speaker, I recognize that the member voted with the Bloc Québécois for advance requests, but I deplore the fact that he was the only one from his party to do so. This demonstrates the rift that exists between Quebec and the rest of Canada on this issue. It is deplorable. I deplore the fact that the member could not convince his entire caucus to vote with us. I recognize the importance of taking the time to talk about such important issues. However, we have been at this for three years, and the government has not done anything.

Extending the deadline by three years is a hypocritical way of ensuring that we never talk about it again, because that takes us past the next election. It is irresponsible.

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I will start with an assertion whose veracity will become clear. With Bill C-62 , the cowardly Liberal government brought forth a mouse. If we are talking about Bill C‑62 today, it is because Bill C‑7 created the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying when it passed. The committee's mandate was to review the medical assistance in dying legislation, in particular as regards the issue of advance requests. Because we knew that the problem was more difficult in cases of mental illness, the government set up an expert panel to help MPs do their job.

The panel was to issue a report to the special joint committee. The expert panel was indeed set up. The problem is that, instead of putting everything in place following the adoption of Bill C‑7, the government decided to call an election in 2021. That delayed the process. Immediately after the useless election, we would have expected the special joint committee to sit but, no, we had to wait. They took their sweet time. The committee was finally convened, but it had a huge mandate. Its mandate was so huge that Bill C‑39 on mental illness had to be introduced, delaying the committee's recommendation.

Since February 2023, the committee has been very clear on the issue of advance requests. In fact, that was its most widely held recommendation. During the entire debate on Bill C‑62 in the House, the government said that we needed to be cautious and proceed slowly. That is fine, but when caution involves making patients suffer, I cannot agree. I think we need to be diligent. The government took its sweet time. Here we are in 2024, and it introduced legislation seeking to postpone the issue of mental illness. Fine, but what is happening with the main recommendation the committee made in February 2023?

The government knew very well that Quebec was laying the groundwork on the issue of advance requests. It knew very well that Quebec would bring in its own law. Instead of taking inspiration from that and seeing what measures could be included in the regulation accompanying Canada's MAID legislation, it did nothing. I have stood in the House many times to ask the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health why the government did nothing. Why does the bill not include a component on advance requests, which should have been prepared over the past year?

After all, the government introduced legislation enacting the special joint committee's February 2023 recommendation on mental illness. On the issue of advance requests, however, it did nothing, despite the majority recommendation. Yesterday, I got my answer. The Minister of Health demonstrated in front of the whole committee that he was unfamiliar with the Quebec law, yet he rises in the House and says he has enormous respect for Quebec's process. The Liberals do not even know what they are talking about.

The minister told me that the issue of advance requests is more difficult than the issue of mental illness because, for example, there might be family quarrels at the patient's bedside.

(1140) I realized that the minister had not read

section 29.6 of the Quebec law, which stipulates that, as soon as patient is diagnosed, they can appoint a third party. The third party will not determine when the person can access medical assistance in dying, but will advocate for their wishes, which will be included in the advance request, or the person's criteria.

People in my riding have told me that, when they become incontinent and can no longer control their bowels, when they have reached the point where they no longer have any appetite and it becomes a chore for their caregivers to feed them, although they are well compensated for their troubles, when they are no longer able to recognize their friends and family members and when they can no longer maintain relationships, they would like to have access to medical assistance in dying.

The third party in whom they have placed their trust will then ask the care team—because patients are indeed cared for by entire teams—to evaluate whether they are meeting the criteria, if they are there yet. If people make advance requests, it is because they want to avoid shortening their life. They want to live as long as possible. We could be good to them and take care of them until they cross their tolerance threshold. The minister does not even know what I am talking about right now.

Do members think it is normal that people say they respect Quebec, that they have great admiration for Quebec's progress on this issue, but that they do not even know what is in Quebec's law? It is no surprise that they come out with a bill like Bill C‑62, that does not address this at all. Then they have the gall to say that Quebec has made good progress, but that not all Canadians are ready for that, so they have to wait and watch their patients suffer. Quebec is not the only province that supports advance requests. According to an Ipsos survey, 85% of Canadians from coast to coast support advance requests.

The Conservatives claim that they want to do good, they want to take care of Canada's most vulnerable. I, too, want to take care of the most vulnerable, but who is more vulnerable than a patient who is about to cross their tolerance threshold, who is suffering and who is being told no by the government? Some claim that there could be abuses, as if the Criminal Code did not provide for punishment of abuses. They seem to believe the medical system to be inherently evil. I heard my Conservative colleague earlier.

Listening to the Conservatives, one would think everyone working in the health system wants vulnerable people euthanized. I heard another Conservative member say there is an opioid crisis, there are people in the streets, and we are going to euthanize them. That is absolutely false. It is really far-fetched. That kind of rhetoric is meant to scare people; it amounts to spreading misinformation on a crucial topic. When we care, we do not infringe on individual autonomy. The role of the state is not to decide matters so personal as how someone wishes to cross their threshold of tolerance.

It is not to tell patients what is right for them. It is to provide the conditions so they can make a free and informed choice.

(1145) [ English ]

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I have to say that I find the position of the Bloc to be somewhat curious insofar as it is inconsistent with the position taken by the National Assembly, which rejected the policy of the government to expand MAID in cases where mental illness is the sole underlying condition. I understand that the position of the Bloc members to oppose Bill C-62 is on the basis they would like to see the policy implemented in one short year from now. Can the member explain why the Bloc is taking a position that is inconsistent with that of the National Assembly?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Luc Thériault :

Madam Speaker, I have said it repeatedly, the Bloc Québécois wants Bill C‑62 to include a

section on advance requests for MAID. This is our main objection. We tried to introduce amendments in step with Quebec's request and that of the whole National Assembly. Where mental disorders are concerned, we start from the premise that psychiatry is unable to ease the suffering of every patient stricken by a severe mental disorder. Psychiatrists told us that 50% of their diagnoses are wrong. It is a wonderfully precise science. However, one thing is true.

Although there is no exact diagnosis and a diagnosis can change, what is clear, straightforward, specific and a constant in a patient's journey over the decades is that they suffer. Psychiatrists cannot deny that their patients suffer, and that all they can offer them is a path to palliative care. In fact, Dr. Gagnon told us we had to develop palliative care for people afflicted with mental disorders because that is all we can offer them. Quebec made its decision in 2021. It did not have the opportunity to work off the expert report that the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying had in 2022.

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Madam Speaker, this morning is my first opportunity to take

part in this debate. I have heard a few comments from people who think the Government of Canada is going to have a hand in murdering Canadians. [ English ] I know it has come up in a point of order. We are stuck, but it does not mean that anyone wants to murder any Canadians. I think we need to be concerned, with a choice and a debate this deeply personal and moral, and with such complicated questions. Given the constraints of Supreme Court decisions and the work of the Senate, how do we keep the focus here not on the partisanship of this place but on making and passing good laws?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Luc Thériault :

Madam Speaker, I challenge anyone to find petty partisanship or political calculation in any of my speeches. I always focus on the issue at hand. Since 2015, what I have come to realize is that, unfortunately, parliamentarians here in the House are not on the same page as Quebec parliamentarians. Time for reflection is sorely lacking here. We could have had some time for reflection—since 2021, actually—but the government dragged its feet. That meant that we had less time and less of an opportunity to do thorough work.

The issue of mental disorders is now being postponed until 2027, which basically amounts to choosing not to deal with this issue. I would like us to work on this issue immediately after royal assent, but that is not going to happen.

(1150) Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his responsible speech. Scaremongering is absolutely deplorable. That said, even though the Conservatives make a habit of scaremongering, I consider it our duty to address any reasonable apprehensions that the public may have. Obviously, MAID is a permanent and irreversible solution. Could my colleague briefly tell us how MAID precludes the possibility of rash decisions and how it will be implemented in a structured, responsible and reasonable way?

Mr. Luc Thériault :

Madam Speaker, first of all, we have to start from the premise that all health care workers are basically caring and compassionate people. The premise of MAID's opponents is based on their belief that certain fundamentally malevolent and evil people want to get rid of vulnerable members of our society. It seems rather surprising that the Conservatives, as economic libertarians, believe that the state should get mixed up in such a personal decision as an individual's death. The reason is that other determinants are at play.

I have asked them repeatedly why they think that they are in a better position to make that decision than the person who is suffering. Today, I will say the thing they lack the courage to admit: it is because of religious beliefs.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Order. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot rose on a point of order earlier. I checked the record. The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes ' comment was not directed at the member. It was a general comment. When he repeated his remarks, I heard him clearly that time. I then mentioned that such comments should not be made in the House. It can cause disorder, but I am also certain that no member in the House wants to kill anyone. I checked the record. It was a general comment that went: “If there are members in this place...who would rather have the government kill people”. I just wanted to add that. The hon. member for Saint‑Jean is rising on a point of order.

Ms. Christine Normandin :

Madam Speaker, in response to the ruling you just made, I would invite the Chair to possibly consider the fact that using unparliamentary language about members in general is no less harmful than using it about one member in particular, in my opinion. I would like to hear the Chair on that because even if the comments were not directed at one specified member, they are no less harmful. I think that the ruling should be made regardless of who the comments are about, whether it is someone specific or members in general. It is the comment itself that is harmful.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I appreciate the hon. member's comment, and I will discuss it with the other occupants of the chair. These sorts of comments have been a number of times, and we need to stand up and say whether that is acceptable or not. We also heard many such comments yesterday. This is not the first time. This sort of thing has been happening for years. We also need to ensure that the members who are rising to speak think about what they want to say or what they are going to say before they say it. It is not just the Speaker's responsibility to manage the House.

It is the responsibility of all members to ensure respect for the House and how it works. [ English ] Resuming debate, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

(1155) Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise in this House, as I have done many times over the past 20 years. I mention the 20-year mark because I have always been a great political optimist, a great believer in Canada and a believer in our fundamental goodness when it comes to working things out. However, we are in a very dark time for democracy. We see the rise of disinformation and social conflicts in all aspects of life. On the international stage, we see the uncertainty coming out of Putin's aggression and the mass killing of innocent people in Palestine.

I do not feel that the House of Commons is rising to what Canadians expect us to be. Too often, we are dealing with very profound issues through glib press releases or slogans and bumper sticker politics. Every now and then we are confronted with legislation that forces us to go deeper, and this is certainly such a moment. There is nothing more profound in the human community than birth and death.

How we address the rights of people as they are dying, as well as the supports that need to be in place, not only defines who we are as a society but also goes right down to who we are as families, as neighbours, as spouses, as parents and as children. We are in a very unfortunate moment in terms of the failure to put the guardrails in place to protect people at this most profound moment. The issue of MAID is very personal, and it is of societal importance that we get this right. I have certainly struggled with this issue.

I wanted to make sure that what we did was done for the benefit of all, in the best interest of the human community, considering the right not only of the individual but also of the people who love them to be part of something special. I am coming up on the anniversary of my sister Kathleen's passing. Nobody blew through our family more like a summer storm than Kathleen, and I have never seen anybody suffer greater pain. She was fearless right until the very end. Kathleen was always wanting one more gathering, song or story.

She would never have accepted MAID, because her will to live was so powerful even as she knew she was not going to live. I am not saying that her death was any more profound than anyone else's. How she went was her choice, as well as our choice. My mother said the rosary; I sang Danny Boy . That is how we do things in our family. We had one of those great Celtic wakes afterward. There were people there who had never even met my sister, but they all told stories about her. That is the way we do things in the Celtic tradition. I have also had friends, who had cancers they could not beat, phone me to say goodbye.

MAID allowed them the opportunity to choose, with their family and their community, a dignified way to go. I respect that. It is a very profound choice. When Parliament was confronted with the need, because of the Supreme Court ruling, to put a regime in place, we did so and then said that there would be a review. We needed a review because we were going to a place we had never been to as a society. The review would happen after we saw how MAID was working. Was it working as it was supposed to? Were there abuses? Were the rigours that Parliament said had to be put in place not paid attention to?

Then we had the Quebec Superior Court decision, the Truchon decision. I felt at that time that it was the obligation of the federal government to appeal. I am not going to argue the merits of the Truchon decision, but the obligation of the federal government was to make sure that, if we were to apply this at the national level, we had really done all the due diligence. That was not done. The Liberals moved a change to MAID before the review that was supposed to happen. Suddenly, things were already changing from what we had agreed on. Then it went to our colleagues in the Senate.

I will never say much that is positive about the Senate, but today I will certainly say how dismal and appalling the attitudes of the senators were.

(1200) Stan Kutcher, whom I had to sit with on the special committee, showed disrespect and arrogance. Senators, who are not elected, who have no accountability, who do not have to go back to their communities when they are dealing with a suicide crisis like I and other people have to, said that they wanted an arbitrary date to extend MAID to people suffering from mental illness and depression. That was an extraordinarily outrageous and poorly thought out overreach, and it was the job of the Parliament of Canada to simply say, no.

All the other provisions of MAID would have stayed in place, but that did not happen. What happened was the Liberals agreed, and then it dawned on them that we were going down a very dangerous road and things had not been thought out. There is my colleague from Abbotsford , whom I have sat with on many committees. We probably disagree on a lot in politics, but we share the same integrity of coming to the House to do the right thing, bringing what we can bring to bear. He brought forward legislation to deal with this provision, and it was voted down.

Therefore, we are now some 30 days from a profound change in legislation that would change Canada forever, and we are scrambling on a question of life, death and body autonomy. This is not how we should be dealing with these issues. I used the words “body autonomy”, because it is one of the profound human rights, the right to control one's body and the right to make a decision, but it is not an absolute right. There are societal factors that go into that right.

When people are deeply depressed, when they are suffering mental illness and feel alone, their body autonomy has been compromised as has their ability to make decisions. It is really important for us to always remember that nobody dies alone. They may die in grief. They may die in isolation. They may die in the blackest hole of their personal pain, but the impacts of that death affect family, neighbours and people beyond what the poor person who suffered that dark moment could ever understand.

If people have ever sat down and worked with people whose loved ones were lost to suicide, they want to say, again and again, “If only they had known how much they were loved.” In the northern communities I work in, children as young as 10 years old are giving up and killing themselves. What kind of nation sits back and lets children give up hope at age 10?

I would have thought that when we had those kinds of suicide crises at Cross Lake, Attawapiskat, Pikangikum and Wapekeka, and we cannot even mention how many of those communities have suffered, that there would have been a national consensus to look at what we needed to put in place, but that did not happen.

When I sat on that special committee and heard some of the medical experts say that they were really pleased that the Liberal government had put in place all the steps necessary to help this through, it made me think that we were putting resources in place to push ahead the ability of people, who are severely depressed, to make a decision to die without getting a second opinion from their loved ones, their families or their spouses, even. The government would do that, but it would not put in place the broader supports we need for mental illness.

This is not a whataboutism issue; this is about the crisis we are facing, with 4,000 suicide deaths a year. The mental health crisis is extreme. In 2016, I brought forward the national palliative care strategy, because it is not applied fairly across the country. When we cannot die in dignity, it is a terrible thing. We have talked with doctors and nurses across the country about the palliative care approach. The federal government agreed and said it would put a strategy in place, that it would work with the provinces and territories, yet nothing was done.

In 2019, I brought Motion No. 174 on a national suicide prevention plan, which was based on the incredible work that was done in Nunavut. We know that Quebec put a suicide prevention plan in place and cut the suicide rate by 50%.

(1205) Once one starts to map it out, these factors are not difficult to find, the patterns of where those suicide clusters form, with respect to areas of age and economic crisis. That was part of what the suicide action plan would be. Parliament would provide the resources so we could start to map out where these crises occurred and put the mental health services in place.

We need to be doing that as a Parliament instead of scrambling at the eleventh hour to come up with a fix, a temporary fix, another temporary fix on a temporary fix, on a decision that was put forward by a non-elected, unaccountable Senate, which had no backing, no credibility and no support, other than the fact that a couple of arrogant senators, who have never been elected and have no accountability, decided that Parliament would go along with this, and the government put up with that.

It was an absolute failure of public policy, to unelected senators like Pamela Wallin and Stan Kutcher dictate health policy for people in crisis. We would never allow that for anything else, yet here we are, 30 days from the deadline. We have had letters telling us not to do this. Seven out of 10 provinces say to not do this. We had the medical community saying that it had no way to even properly assess and not do this. We have had really profound, thoughtful witnesses come forward to talk about the complexities of the issues of mental illness. Who is one to say whether it is irredeemable?

Who is one to say that this suffering is so bad that it warrants death, when there are options? We also have the issue of people in increasingly desperate situations, who feel alone. It tells us who we are as a society when we say that it is really too bad that one is homeless. It is really too bad that one is suffering the nightmare of addiction. It is really too bad that there are young people in a northern indigenous community and they have never, ever been able to get proper medical attention. However, if they want to die, we will set up a process. MAID was not meant for that.

MAID was meant to deal with people who could make the choice, an informed adult choice as they suffered pain that would not go away, with their loved ones and their families. I remember when my good friend Liz from Vancouver Island called me. We were good friends. She used to drive me around Vancouver Island in this old Jaguar with wood panelling that she got for $4,000. I kept saying, “Liz, if this car breaks down on the mountains, I'm not going to have to get out to push it to the other side am I?” Liz played blues music for me in the car. She talked about the Catholic saints and about queer politics.

She was her own person, and she smoked. As she was dying, she called me and said that this was the moment, that she was taking the moment because this was the last one she may have to make that decision. It was a very profound way to go. MAID is for that. MAID is not for people who feel they have no hope, without a back-up, without a robust, multidisciplinary team to walk the issues through with them. It is not something they can make a second choice. I think of Dr. Valorie Masuda, a palliative care physician, who said to the committee:

If this special joint committee on MAID recommends proceeding with allowing access to MAID for chronic mental conditions, I would recommend that there be a robust, multidisciplinary review process involving physicians, psychiatrists, social workers and ethicists involved in a patient's MAID application, and that there be a transparent review of MAID cases shared between health authorities and provincial and federal oversight so that we ensure we are not treating social problems with euthanasia.

Imagine if someone with mental illness and depression were able to get a multidisciplinary team of physicians, psychiatrists, social workers and ethicists, we would not have a mental health crisis. Those people are not there. Those teams are not there. The government made a commitment to transfer $4.5 billion for mental health to the provinces to deal with the crisis that is unfolding before us, but it has not done that.

(1210) Therefore, again, we are in a situation where we are being asked to vote. The bill that the Liberals have brought forward is gutless, because it will punt this down the road for three years, and we will be back at it in three years. We had punted it down the road for a year over the fundamental failure of the former attorney general who simply let it pass.

However, the Senate made a completely unreasonable, undemocratic and unwise pronouncement that overrode the work of the democratically-elected House, a House whose members, as dismal as we are sometimes, dumbed-down, sloganeering and fighting over the stupidest things, have to go back to our constituents and talk to them. We have had to go the funerals of people who have died from suicide because of depression. We bring that experience into the House. We can disagree on the extent of MAID, we can disagree on many things, but we have a democratic right and a duty to do the right thing here.

The Senate has no democratic accountability to anyone. Therefore, the fact that we are having to pick up the pieces from its arrogance and the failure of the Liberal government to hold it to account is concerning. We need to reflect on that. I would urge the members in the other chamber to not play games with this. On March 17, the deadline changes, the law of Canada changes, and the amount of people who could die without proper support would change. It would change forever the legal framework of Canada. My message to those unelected senators is not to play games with the work we are doing.

We are picking up the pieces. We are trying to fix the damage they did, and we need to do so this, because a bigger principle is at stake, the stake of human dignity in a country. We have to also extend this conversation to our ongoing failure as a nation on mental health; our ongoing failure to offer young people a better future; and our ongoing failure to recognize that if the weakest people in our society are allowed to kill themselves because there is no hope, then we have failed, and we are failing.

I would like to think that we can come together across party lines to say that there has to be guardrails that protect the autonomy of the individual, and also places individuals who are in mental crisis and depression within the context of their family, their loved ones and their society. When one dies alone and in darkness, the effects are felt for years and years after. Going into some communities after a suicide crisis is like walking into shockwaves of grief that play out for years and years to come, and it takes so much work to come back from that for a community, for a family.

Here we are as a society making that decision. Therefore, let us do this right and let us do this with respect for the people who expect us to do the right thing.

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, as always, I appreciate the member's interventions, his insights and all that he brings to the table. I would agree with the member in that one of the sticking points for me in this process is the fact that the agenda, and this is undeniable, has been driven by the Senate. There is a big difference between government legislation and Senate legislation, and we are talking about a Senate amendment. The government has all kinds of resources. It has access to all kinds of experts to consult. It has access to legal experts, it does charter analysis and everything else.

However, the Senate side does not have those same resources. Therefore, how could the Senate approach this with such a degree of certainty and, in some cases, one might say, a sense of infallibility when it does not really have the resources that the government has? The government, with all those resources, never intended to go ahead. I would like the member's comment on that.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, if people are not elected and cannot be fired, it does not just give them a sense of infallibility; it gives them a sense of absolute arrogance, because they can do whatever they want, for better or worse for Canadians. I was certainly appalled. I had the honour to sit in for my colleague for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for one of the meetings, and I was super careful asking questions, even for the people with whom I did not agree. I wanted to get this right. However, I felt this sense of lazy arrogance.

Senator Kutcher so much as said that they had already agreed they would not hear all the witnesses, that they had already agreed they would just push ahead. The Senate blew this. It did not do the due diligence. Senators were not even interested in hearing the witnesses. We should never have been put in a situation to let that lot make a decision as profound as this.

(1215) Mr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, that was a passionate speech by the member. He spoke in particular about northern Canada, where maybe the resources are not the same as those Canadians enjoy in metro areas. He also brought up the Senate situation. I think we are seeing in the House of Commons these days that we are having issues with the Senate, in particular with Bill C-234 , which we have brought back several times here, and the MAID legislation. This is a concern. As the member said, they are not elected. They are appointed.

It has caused some strain on families, not only with the MAID legislation but also for the agriculture sectors with Bill C-234 . I just wanted to point that out and have the member comment on the issues we are having with the Senate. It looks like we could have these issues for a number of years with the Senate, compared to the House of Commons.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, we certainly know that the Conservative record on the Senate is pretty dismal too. I mean, they put Mike Duffy, the Come-From-Away senator, in there. Why was that? Was it because he was a hack who raised money for Stephen Harper? Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau can be included in a rogue's gallery of people who are not accountable. The issue today is that we now have, as a Parliament, a democratic body, the obligation to fix something very profound.

I would love to debate and talk about how we deal with that unelected, unaccountable lot where it seems that, if they flipped pancakes for the Liberal or Conservative parties, they get a job for life. There has to be a better way of running a democracy.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago, I attended the funeral of a friend's mother who had decided to avail herself of MAID. In her farewell speech to her mother, my friend said the following: Mom, when you told us about your decision, I did not agree because it was going to deprive me of a mother, but I had no choice but to respect your decision, because it was yours to make. I thought it was a testament to her generosity of spirit. In his speech, the member for Timmins—James Bay talked about respect.

Since he is so knowledgeable on the subject, I would like to ask him a question that I did not have the opportunity to ask earlier. Although it is not necessarily the subject we are debating today, I would like to know why he decided to vote against the amendment to allow Quebec to offer advance requests. The purpose of this amendment was to allow the Government of Quebec to proceed with the safeguards we have in place, and this request did not require a specific provision for Quebec in the Criminal Code. The purpose was to ensure that all provinces could use the program if they wanted to.

I would like to hear why the member for Timmins—James Bay—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her thoughtful question. Parliament needs to put a process in place to examine all these issues. Personally, I think it is an important issue, and members of Parliament need to work together to make the necessary changes to this bill.

[ English ]

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP) :

Uqaqtittiji , the member highlighted the ravages of what colonial systems continue to do to indigenous peoples, but I wanted to ask specifically about Bill C-62 and the amendment that has been inserted about the creation of a joint committee of both houses of Parliament designated for determining eligibility. What does the member think about that amendment, which would require discussions on ensuring the eligibility of a person whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness? Does he think that is an urgent task that needs to happen after Bill C-62 is passed?

(1220) Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, we know that a joint committee was struck, and we heard a lot of testimony, in particular, that the process in place to make this work is not there. We need the legislation to say that the right of someone to die because there are no other options out there for them is not good enough. We need to close this loophole. We need a committee to be struck, I think, to examine how MAID is rolling out to make sure that it protects rights. Also, I think we need a conversation about proper mental health services, which are being denied to people across the country.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the member's work with his palliative care motion, which led to my bringing the palliative care bill to Parliament. He may be aware that the five-year review shows an increase in people who have accessed palliative care from 30% to 58%. There is still a long way to go. My question for the member has to do with the Truchon decision, which he talked about. I agree that it should have been appealed to the Supreme Court, but the government today can still ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on it. I think that is what the government should do. Does the member agree?

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, the problem was that the government accepted the decision and changed the law. Now we are dealing with it. My message to government is that, from here on in, we cannot be cavalier about this. We cannot just allow unelected bodies, or even a superior court, to make a decision on something so profound. Our duty as parliamentarians is to test the law, check the law and make sure that any changes from here on in are done within a broader framework of rights, dignity and the protection of the vulnerable.

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his advocacy on this issue. I have heard from constituents who have given up hope, who are struggling with the housing crisis and the high cost of living and feel like that they have been legislated into poverty. They are worried about the expansion of MAID and what that means for them and the people they love who are in the same situation. I am wondering if the member can talk about the responsibility of successive Liberal and Conservative governments in putting people in this dire situation.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, I have spent my career believing in the great hope of Canada and the fundamental goodness of Canada, but as a nation, we are failing people. We are failing people in a time of growing climate uncertainty and international uncertainty. People are afraid. They need to know that what we do in the House brings their concerns forward and tries to put reasonable solutions in place because people cannot be left feeling hopeless and uncertain at this time.

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Fundy Royal . I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the House today in support of Bill C-62 , the bill that proposes to extend the temporary exclusion of mental illness as an eligible condition for medical assistance in dying by three years, until March 17, 2027.

I will speak today about the importance of a delay before lifting this exclusion to provide more time for the provinces, territories and their health care partners to prepare for this critical juncture in the evolution of medical assistance in dying, which we refer to as MAID in Canada. The legal framework for MAID is set out in the federal Criminal Code. However, it is the provinces and territories who have the responsibility for health care delivery, including MAID implementation.

We have been working in close collaboration with the provinces and territories to support the safe implementation of MAID since before the original legislation permitting MAID was enacted in the Criminal Code in 2016. This is an important relationship built on the mutual goal of ensuring quality health care for the people of Canada.

Both the expert panel on MAID and mental illness and the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying emphasized the importance of clear practice standards and consistent implementation of guidelines across the country, training for physicians and nurse practitioners, and case review and oversight to support best practices and trust in the appropriate application of the law.

Provincial and territorial governments and their stakeholders, such as health care professional organizations, regulatory bodies and practitioners, have been actively planning for eligibility for MAID for persons whose sole medical condition is a mental illness. As has been recognized across the board, critical progress has been made in this regard. However, the provinces and territories face different challenges within their jurisdictions and are at varying stages of work in implementing these key elements and consequently their readiness for the lifting of the exclusion.

For example, a model practice standard for MAID was developed by an independent task force group made up of clinical, regulatory and legal experts as a resource for physician and nursing regulatory authorities to adopt or adapt in their development or ongoing revision of MAID standards. In addition to the model standard, the task group also released a companion document entitled “Advice to the Profession”.

Practice standards are developed and adopted by regulatory bodies responsible for ensuring that specific groups of health professionals operate within the highest standard of clinical practice and medical ethics. While some provincial and territorial regulatory bodies have successfully implemented MAID practice standards into their guidance documents for clinicians, others are still in the process of reviewing and updating their existing standards. To support the safe