Bill C-14 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create exemptions from the offences of culpable homicide, of aiding suicide and of administering a noxious thing, in order to permit medical practitioners and nurse practitioners to provide medical assistance in dying and to permit pharmacists and other persons to assist in the process;
(b) specify the eligibility criteria and the safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person;
(c) require that medical practitioners and nurse practitioners who receive requests for, and pharmacists who dispense substances in connection with the provision of, medical assist­ance in dying provide information for the purpose of permitting the monitoring of medical assistance in dying, and authorize the Minister of Health to make regulations respecting that information; and
(d) create new offences for failing to comply with the safeguards, for forging or destroying documents related to medical assistance in dying, for failing to provide the required information and for contravening the regulations.
This enactment also makes related amendments to other Acts to ensure that recourse to medical assistance in dying does not result in the loss of a pension under the Pension Act or benefits under the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act. It amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that no investigation need be conducted under section 19 of that Act in the case of an inmate who receives medical assistance in dying.
This enactment provides for one or more independent reviews relating to requests by mature minors for medical assistance in dying, to advance requests and to requests where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition.
Lastly, this enactment provides for a parliamentary review of its provisions and of the state of palliative care in Canada to commence at the start of the fifth year following the day on which it receives royal assent.

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑7 would not have been possible and would not have passed if Bill C‑14 had not infringed on people's right to life.

I am very disappointed to hear my colleague's comments. He has not read Bill C‑390, but he is in charge of procedure. He should be able to understand the bills that are introduced in the House. He should at least have a basic knowledge of that. Since he does not know, since he is ignorant, he does not know that the proposed solution—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I move that the second report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, presented on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, be concurred in.

Today, I am starting off the debate on the report on medical assistance in dying that was presented in February 2023. It is entitled “Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada: Choices for Canadians” and was presented by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, which was struck in May 2021. The report was presented a year and a half ago. I am bringing this debate back to the House because, as reported in the news, Quebec began authorizing advance requests for people with degenerative and incapacitating diseases yesterday. The answers the Prime Minister gave us yesterday suggest to me that he does not understand the issues at all and has not given them any thought since May 2021. That is unacceptable to people who are suffering.

Today, I would like to take a moment to remember all those we have lost, as well as those who are currently disappearing into the abyss of dementia. They are slowly but surely and irreversibly becoming prisoners of time, of each moment that fades away as it is lived. The present moment is gradually erasing the people they once were, and they are losing contact with the things that gave their existence meaning, things like joy, sorrow, the ability to have relate to others and share their experiences, consciousness, and the ability to make others happy and plan for the future. This terrible disease is robbing them of all the things that make life what it is, that make up the experience of life, the human experience, until their life is reduced to a mere biological process. They are irreversibly losing their physical, social, mental and moral autonomy, in every sense of the word.

Wherever you are right now, I am thinking about you, Mom.

I am also thinking about Sandra Demontigny, who is suffering from early-onset dementia. She is fighting for patients who have this debilitating, incurable, incapacitating disease to have the right to self-determination. She is fighting for them to have the right to make an advance request for MAID after being diagnosed. People with dementia want to live as long as possible. They do not want to shorten their lives by requesting MAID while they are still mentally competent. They want to be able to receive it once they have become incapacitated, once they have reached their limit. They are seeking assurance that we will have the compassion needed to respect their final wishes. Fortunately, Quebec decided not to wait for the federal government to wake up. It passed a law, which took effect yesterday, that allows people to make an advance request.

I commend Sandra Demontigny for her courage, her determination and her efforts to assert patients' right to self-determination. That is what we are talking about. The principle of lifelong self-determination is enshrined in law. No one can violate a person's integrity. That being the case, why, at the most intimate moment of a person's life, the moment of their death, should the government get to decide what is best for them? I would remind my colleagues that the government's job is not to decide what is best for a patient. The government's job is to create conditions that are conducive to making free and informed choices. People need to be free to make their own choices.

The Liberals champion the freedom to choose when it comes to abortion, when it comes to a woman's right to control her own body, so how they can question a patient's prerogative to exercise their right to self-determination in a decision as personal as that of their own death? The Liberals are dithering and are still hesitant to amend the Criminal Code to make advance requests legal. The Prime Minister said yesterday that it was a deeply personal decision. If he recognizes that, why can he not put some substance behind his statement? I think I have demonstrated that this is indeed a deeply personal decision.

Why shelve the report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying? Why set up joint committees made up of senators and elected representatives, ask them to come up with a key recommendation, and then shelve their report? The committee even managed to convince a Quebec Conservative who agreed with these proposals. The government is finally waking up a year and a half later because it was waiting to see what Quebec would do. The government took a wait-and-see approach so it could see how Quebec would proceed. It was a good idea to look at the example of Quebec, which took a unanimous non-partisan approach. Ottawa could learn something from what happened in Quebec's parliament, which spoke with one voice.

The government is now refusing to amend the Criminal Code, even though we have made it easy to do so. The government is not the one that has been doing the work since 2021, or for the past year and a half. The Quebec National Assembly passed the Act Respecting End-of-Life Care on June 7, 2023. It is now November 2024, and this government is telling us that it needs to have conversations. Who does the government want to have those conversations with? We heard from many experts, groups and citizens. We received many briefs. Despite all that, the government feels it must continue to wait, wait until people are suffering.

The committee report states the following, and I quote:

...Sandra Demontigny eloquently and movingly shared with the committee the sense of peace that advance requests might provide in situations like hers...

These people can feel more at ease dealing with the challenges before them when they are safe in the knowledge that, once they have reached their limit of suffering, we will take care of them and respect their final wishes. That is what we call basic humanity.

Here is what Sandra Demontigny had to say, and I quote:

I am working to calm my vanishing brain and my troubled heart. I feel a need to be reassured about my future so that I can do a better job of living out my remaining days and coping with the more frequent trials I will be experiencing.

My plan is to make the most of my final years while life is still good, with a free mind and without fear.

If those words fail to strike a chord with members here, those members must be heartless and lacking compassion, perhaps because of sweeping ideological principles that they are not putting on the table.

This prompted the committee to say that the Carter decision needed to be respected. Under Carter, the government must not violate sick people's right to life with legislation that would force them to shorten their lives. We saw this in Carter, and it was reiterated in the Beaudoin decision. These people do not want to commit suicide.

That is what Sandra Demontigny told us. She said that she wanted to make the most of the years she has left, knowing that when she reaches her limit of suffering, she will be taken care of and will not have to go through the same appalling decline as her father. Until that moment comes, she wants to live. She does not want to commit suicide.

Is that clear? Who is more vulnerable than a person making this heartfelt plea?

When people say they want to strike a balance between preserving the autonomy of self-determination and protecting the most vulnerable, unless they have fallen down the rabbit hole of believing that everyone in the health care system is evil, it is impossible not to hear this plea.

Why is the government applying a double standard? This report was tabled in February 2023. The government ignored the key recommendation, but, because Bill C‑7 contained a Senate amendment regarding mental disorders and a deadline, the government did accept the committee's recommendation to take another look at the issue after experts had studied it for a year. The government then recommended waiting, because it does not believe that the entire country is ready for this. It accepted the recommendation and applied it, and the result was Bill C‑62. However, in the past year and a half, no bills have been drafted based on the committee's key recommendation on advance requests. If that is not an example of lacking courage and shirking responsibility, I do not know what is.

The minister is unable to understand that an advance request cannot take effect until a diagnosis has been made. It has been six months since the Quebec law was passed. I do not know what world I am living in. This is certainly not a sign of competence. He clearly finds the issue complex because he keeps inventing problems that should not exist.

We are not only criticizing. We went so far as to table a bill. Bill C‑390 offers the government a solution, because we are in suggestion mode, not just in opposition mode. This bill allows the provinces to pass their own legislation once they have debated the issue. Quebec has been juggling this issue, reflecting on MAID and doing something about it since 2009. Now, in 2024, it can start accepting advance requests. There is a law in Quebec. We have adopted a legislative framework. If the federal government thinks advance requests are too complicated, maybe it should look at Bill C‑390, which says it should go at the provinces' and legislative assemblies' pace. This is a debate that should be undertaken by each legislative assembly, by citizens and their representatives. Once they have debated the issue and established a legislative framework, they will then be able to accept advance requests for MAID. That is a very reasonable suggestion.

This is not preferential treatment for Quebec. It is an additional safeguard for the government. The idea is to amend the Criminal Code to simply say that, once a legislative assembly, a province, has adopted a legislative framework and a law, it can move ahead.

The administration of care is a matter for the provinces. End-of-life care is a matter for the provinces. The Criminal Code is a federal statute, and the federal government does not need to describe how things should be done. Furthermore, we are setting an example for all the other provinces. According to every poll conducted over the past three years, 83% to 85% of Canadians support advance requests, so I have to wonder where the political risk is. I feel like this government is afraid of its own shadow. It lacks the courage of its convictions, assuming it even has any convictions left.

I thought that freedom to choose was a cardinal Liberal Party belief that set it apart from the Conservatives, but no. I can criticize the Conservatives, but I will say one thing about them: We know where they stand and why, so we are able to position ourselves accordingly. As for the Liberals, there is no way of knowing what they think. They are dilettantes.

How can they be so unconcerned when it comes to an issue like this, an issue of human suffering? What are the Liberals waiting for? I can answer that question. What were the Conservatives waiting for in 2015, when the Carter decision forced Parliament to take a stand and an extension had to be sought? This Parliament has never been able to deal with the MAID issue except under a court injunction. The court had to order the government to change the law and the Criminal Code. Parliament has never taken the lead or even listened to patients and the public. Since 87% to 90% of Quebeckers support advance requests, it seems to me we should be moving forward.

Why is there a problem today? There is a problem because the Canadian Medical Protective Association has always said that physicians will be protected so long as they follow the most restrictive law. At certain times, Quebec had the most restrictive law, after the passage of Bill C‑7 and Bill C‑14. In Canada, there is no law like Quebec's. Quebec applies the Criminal Code and the regulations that explain how to proceed. Quebec ended up having to ensure that people like Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon could not access MAID. Bill C‑7 would have allowed this, so Quebec had to tweak its law.

I am appealing to people's sense of duty and humanity. I hope that my colleagues will set aside government paternalism and get on the same page as the people of Quebec and Canada. I suggest that the government take Bill C‑390 and make it a government bill.

Today, the government is claiming that a national conversation is needed. I thought that forming a special joint committee of senators and members from both chambers in a parliamentary democracy gave those committee members the standing to make recommendations that reflect what the public thinks.

I look forward to seeing what my colleagues have to say during this debate. I invite the government and the Prime Minister to quickly do their homework so they can get up to date on this file, allow advance requests and amend the Criminal Code to harmonize it with what is happening on the ground and eliminate any legal confusion.

Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to what the health minister was saying, so I am glad to be the first person to rise on my side to maybe provide a rebuttal and also to reset the debate, because the debate is not directly about Bill C-64; it is about a programming motion.

When I listened to the minister's speech, I also had the time to compare it to his speech that he gave at second reading. The same three anecdotes he raised today were raised then. Two of the three are completely misleading, and one was a very personal experience of his that he raised, which is his right as a member and a minister.

However, this is about a programming motion that would guillotine debate in the House. It would order a committee of the House to basically consider a bill within 10 hours, a bill that would have profound impact on the structure of Canada's health care systems, plural because they are systems. Quebec has a different system than Alberta, than British Columbia, than Saskatchewan and than other provinces in Canada.

We know from much research that has already been done by CIHI, The Conference Board of Canada, Statistics Canada, and CLHIA, which is the life insurance trade association, that 97.2% of Canadians already have access or are eligible for access to an insurance benefit plan of some sort. I know that in my home province, we have Blue Cross, which is usually the insurer of last resort that provides a lot of the services that the minister talked about.

The worst part of all is that we would be programming a committee of the House to study what essentially amounts to a pamphlet of legislation. The minister talked about finding common ground and solutions. I have also heard other members of Parliament talk about how important committee work is to them. Now we would basically be guillotining and gag ordering a specific committee of the House, the Standing Committee on Health, to do its work in 10 hours.

That is why I asked a question for the health minister on why he felt the need to exclude himself from having to come to testify before the health committee. One would think that he would put himself before the members at committee and answer all of their questions on the reasoning behind C-64 and the wisdom of it, because it is not a national pharmacare plan. That is not what it would do. It would cover two very small areas of medicine.

I will note that in the minister's second reading speech about Bill C-64, he had all of one sentence devoted to rare disease drugs and rare disease patients, typically the source of the most expensive therapies, the most expensive drugs, on an individual basis, not on a broad basis. Typically most drug plans in the provinces, whether private or public, spend the most on things like the very basic medication for infections. Medications like amoxicillin or penicillin and variations thereof are the ones that are quite expensive because people get a lot of infections, so it it just a question of volume in those situations.

There is a lot of medication out there that is expensive because it is brand new; it is coming onto the market for the first time. Recently I learned about a new oncology drug that is going to be made available in the United States, but it is cutting-edge, specialized medicine made for the individual patient. The drug comes with a few tens of thousands of dollars of cost associated with its delivery. There will be some cancer centres in Canada that will not be able to have it available for patients, but it will be available to other patients in other parts of Canada. Oncology drugs would not be covered under the plan.

There would actually be nothing covered in the plan except for those two areas of medications, which are very specific ones as well. Like I said, there would be nothing for rare disease patients. The minister talked, in his original speech at second reading, though not today, about the $1.5 billion being devoted to rare disease drugs. That announcement was made in 2019, yet only now has some of the spending gone out, not to cover drug costs but to cover things like the creation of rare disease registries to get foundations, universities and private organizations to start up a rare disease registry specific to one individual drug.

There is often a problem in how the Liberals propose things. They say something, make claims, and then it takes years before anything actually happens. As an example, in 2019 there was an announcement. In 2024, still not a single rare disease drug has been covered by the $1.5 billion. It took five years of waiting. Rare disease patients cannot wait. In fact it was the Liberal government that cancelled the original rare disease strategy in 2016. At that time, the president of the Canadian Organizations for Rare Disorders, Durhane Wong-Rieger, said that it was the kiss of death for patients with rare diseases.

She is a literal ball of energy and an amazing woman, an amazing advocate for patients with rare diseases. This was in 2016. It took the government three years just to announce funding and five years after that to roll out a single dollar. Now the government wants to convince us that it needs to expedite Bill C-64 by programming and ordering the Standing Committee on Health to consider certain things but not others.

I will go through the programming motion, since the minister did not feel the need to even explain why this was necessary. He repeated, essentially, his second reading speech on why we need to expedite this so quickly. There were three days of debate in the House before there was a vote at the Senate and in the Standing Committee on Health. I looked at the work the Standing Committee on Health had done. It did not even have the chance to consider the bill. That is how quickly the government is now programming what is going on.

The first line of this programming motion is very simple: “the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for the committee meetings”. It seems quite reasonable that it would be given first right to interpretation, rooms and catering services if the committee is expected to sit for hours and hours on end. I guess a programming motion would have to have that in it.

The second part is, “the committee shall meet between 3:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on the two further sitting days following the adoption of this order to gather evidence from witnesses, provided that any meeting on a Friday may start at 12:00 p.m. for a duration of not more than five hours”. Essentially, that is saying there will be two more meetings of the Standing Committee on Health and 10 hours of testimony. There are countless members in the House who will say that, during consideration of a bill, witnesses will testify, explain an idea or perhaps a missing amendment or particular line in a bill between the French and the English, which happens on a fairly regular basis. They either do not match, do not make sense or there could be more added to a bill to clarify or constrain a bill. Ten hours is simply not enough for a bill that would have such a substantive impact.

According to the health minister, the Liberals are going to celebrate a bill with such a substantive and profound impact as some great achievement. I do not believe that. I believe this is a pamphlet. This is not national pharmacare. There is no spending associated with this bill. Every one of my constituents back home knows there is no spending associated with this bill. If the Liberals keep ramming the bill through at this pace and it passes through the Senate at some point in the future, not one single drug will be paid for through this legislation because there are no dollars associated with it. There is no, what we call, ministerial warrant from the Minister of Finance connected to this bill. There will be no medication paid for through this particular bill. That is why I do not understand why this programming motion is of such necessity when the committee has not even had a chance to consider it.

I understand perhaps it would be easier to tell Conservatives, members of the Bloc and independent members that they are slowing down the committee's work, that they are not allowing the committee to proceed with witness testimony or consider the contents of the bill, but that has not even happened yet. We have not even had a chance to invite witnesses to explain to us their views on the contents of the bill.

When the minister talks about finding common ground and solutions, he accuses the Conservatives of being against it. Of course we are against it. We voted against the bill, but that doesn't mean we cannot improve an F product and make it maybe an F+ product. I know that is not a grade in universities or colleges in Canada, but we can always make something terrible a little less terrible. This is essentially, like I said, a pamphlet. For me, it was easier to vote against it because I saw nothing for patients with rare diseases. That is not a surprise to anyone in this place.

I remember the original debate on an NDP private member's bill, which I believe was Bill C-340, if memory serves. It was on national pharmacare. At least the title was on national pharmacare, not the contents. It was put forward by the member for Vancouver Kingsway. He and I debated it for most of the day. I was all about access for patients with rare diseases, and I said that was why I could not vote for that bill at the time.

It is not a big surprise to many members of the House and members of the other place that I would be against a bill that has has a title of national pharmacare, but would not do anything for patients with rare diseases. Members know of a personal anecdote I have mentioned many times in the House. I have three living kids with a rare disease called Alport syndrome. One daughter passed away very young, at 39 days old, with a different rare disease. I always joke with my friends in the rare disease community that I am due. I should probably play the lottery as I would I have a decent chance of winning because both of those conditions are rare.

In the case of my living kids, it is a rare disease of the kidneys, CKD, a chronic kidney condition. In the case of my youngest daughter who passed away, she had Patau syndrome, which is a chromosomal condition and very, very rare.

If one knows a child with Down syndrome, one should hug them. They are very special little kids. My daughter had a condition that is considered much worse than Down's. Down's is survivable. There are a lot of very sweet kids who live with Down syndrome, and their families are made incredibly happy by them because they are sweet into the teen years, into their twenties, thirties and forties. One never has to go through those teenage years, as I am going through right now with one of my kids, where suddenly, as the dad, I know nothing and they know everything, which is okay. I will go through this three times in my life.

I will move on to the next part of the programming motion, which reads, “all amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 4:00 p.m. on the second sitting day following the adoption of this order”.

We are quite fortunate there was unlimited time provided, I believe, for the first two speakers on a programming motion. Perhaps members are surprised I would rise on this, but I intend to use this time to explain why I do not like the programming motion and the defects with Bill C-64, and to remind the minister about what the summary of his own legislation says that it does, because it is the complete opposite of what the minister just explained to the House. It is the complete opposite from his second reading speech as well, so members can stay tuned for that part.

On these amendments, we are fortunate because we have a constituency week coming up. I can guarantee many of us will be sitting down and working with patient advocacy groups. We will be going to our stakeholder groups and meeting with our constituents. I have a few who have emailed me on this subject. I will be finding useful amendments to this bill that would improve it in my eyes and in the eyes of my constituents. We have the time.

Had we had a sitting week coming up, had there not been unlimited time for the first speaker on the official opposition side, we could have been rushed to provide amendments by 4 p.m. after the first day. That is an incredibly low amount of time considering this first came to the House February 29 and then the last vote was on April 16 before it was sent to the committee.

Doing a programming motion like this, or a gag order to the committee, is wrong. I do not agree with programming motions. I believe I voted against nearly all of them that ever came through the House. I believe the health minister was also the House leader at one point when Motion No. 16 was being moved through the House. There was also a previous one, and I believe it was a member for Waterloo who moved Motion No. 6, which would have programmed how committees work in the Standing Orders forevermore for the Houses.

I cannot base our opposition or our support for any particular motions and programming motions on good faith coming from that side because I simply do not believe the cabinet, the front-benchers. I do not believe them. There are many good-hearted backbenchers in the Liberal benches. They are easier to work with, I find, than those on the front bench. The front bench I just do not trust. I do not trust the front-benchers to do the right thing for Canadians. In fact, Canadians do not trust them. If we look at the polls, there is about a 20-point disparity, depending on which poll we consider, between what the government is polling at and what the official opposition is polling at.

I will move on to the next point, which reads, “amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by clause consideration of the bill”. I actually do not have a problem with that. Independent members should be treated like every other member of the House, especially during considerations of bills.

Now comes the next one, which gets gets quite technical:

the committee shall meet at 3:30 p.m., on the third sitting day following the adoption of this order to consider the bill at clause-by-clause, or 12:00 p.m. if on a Friday, and if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 8:30 p.m., or 5:00 p.m. if on a Friday, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses, amendments submitted to the committee as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill...

This means that, once the 10 hours of testimony are done, once that particular portion of the committee's work is done, every single amendment has to be voted on immediately, with no debate for amendments. In those 10 hours, if witness testimony takes five or six or seven hours, we then have a few hours left over to consider and debate amendments. We could not even persuade the other side of the wisdom of the amendment. This is so profoundly wrong. I see this programming motion all the time when it comes to omnibus budget bills.

I will remind the House that the Liberal platforms in 2015 and 2019 promised not to do omnibus budget bills, yet they have done them repeatedly, over and over again. In fact, in Liberal budget 2023, they had section changes to clauses 500 to 504 on natural health products. That has nothing to do with the budget. There are no spending items related to it, but it was a regulatory expansion to apply rules for pharmaceuticals directly onto natural health products.

It caught a lot of people by surprise, including myself, that in a budget bill, which sometimes has hundreds of pages, one would do such a thing. They basically clip what they usually do at the finance committee, and now they have dropped it and ordered the Standing Committee on Health to do it in one particular way, in their way, their preferred way, with no debate on any amendments.

Why should one allow backbenchers from any of our political parties to freely consider the judgment and the argument being made by another member of another political party, individually or on behalf of their political movement, on the wisdom of a particular amendment to a government bill? I know, it would be shocking to even have that consideration.

It would be even more shocking for some members of the government benches to know that I have voted for government amendments at committee. I know. I hear “shame” from my side of the benches, but it happens. Sometimes they have a good idea. I am willing to consider good ideas. I am willing to. I have been on several committees over my time, from foreign affairs to finance to the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. I am on the immigration committee and the Canada-China committee now, the select committee. I will vote for reasonable amendments. I will even talk to my own side to try to convince them if there is a reasonable, logical amendment that makes sense. Sometimes there is an argument made by a member of another party that actually makes sense. This section prevents that. There will be no debate on amendments. One is just supposed to vote on them.

Of course, what will happen is that there will be a question of having a recorded division on every single one of those votes. This means the committee will continue, likely, late into an evening, because it is basically programmed. To demonstrate that this is wrong and should not be done, I am fairly sure that there will be members of the committee who will want a recorded division on every single item so that we can go back to it later with our errors and mistakes and illogical situations that arise because two sections perhaps conflict with each other. This type of amendment process, clause by clause, is incredibly important, and we now will not be allowed to be given this opportunity.

The sixth portion of this guillotine gag order on the Standing Committee on Health says:

a member of the committee may report the bill to the House by depositing it with the Clerk of the House, who shall notify the House leaders of the recognized parties and independent members, and if the House stands adjourned, the report shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House during the previous sitting for the purpose of Standing Order 76.1(1)

This is a fairly reasonable amendment that is often provided by members in other committees to make sure that, when reporting on a bill, the House leaders are informed, typically to go on the Notice Paper. I do not have a direct issue with this particular portion, apart from the fact that this is a programming motion, a gag order, that is going to guillotine a committee of the House without that committee even having had the chance to consider a bill.

The next section is section (b). It says:

not more than five hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at report stage, and at the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of the said stage of the bill, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, and, if a recorded division is requested, the vote shall not be deferred...

It continues. There is another one, but I am going to stop right here. This essentially means that, when amendments come back from committee, they are sometimes ruled out of order. They cannot be considered at committee but they can be considered by the House because the House has control of its committees, and the House can decide whether certain amendments can be voted on. Those are typically then submitted to the Speaker.

This essentially says that this process will also be guillotined after five hours. I know they love gag orders. I know they love to guillotine debate. My hope is, too, that during this debate on the programming motion, they do not gag order the gag order. I would hate to see that. It would be like a double gagging of the orders of the House and really limiting debate.

They have done it before. They have done it on Bill C-7 and Bill C-14, the two medical assistance in dying bills. At different stages of those bill, they both programmed and then shut down debate on them. I have seen, plenty of times, allocation motions being moved by cabinet to force bills through the process on matters of conscience.

It is not as if they are technical bills where perhaps there is timeline the Liberals need to reach and where, for the proper administration of government, they can perhaps make an argument they can stand on, but for matters of conscience, to guillotine debate is wrong. In this particular case, I would say that this is not a matter of conscience. I think this is about administration of government services and what the contents of the bill are actually about versus what they are not about. When the Liberals impose a guillotine with time allocation and force the closure of debate, the major disadvantage to Canadians is that they cannot prepare themselves. They cannot organize themselves when they are opposed to particular ideas and when they want to ask questions like, “Why is my rare disease, my health condition or MS not covered in this bill? Why is diabetes covered?”

I know a lot of diabetics, and I am not picking on them directly. I am just asking a simple question. The most common rare disease is multiple sclerosis, or MS. A lot of people in my family have it, as well as friends, colleagues and co-workers. There are spouses of members on this side who have it. Therefore, why is that particular condition, and its medication, which is expensive medication, not in this particular piece of legislation?

It is a choice the government made, so why can we not debate that choice the government has made for those two particular conditions and the medications associated with them? If they are being covered, why not others? There are so many other types of medications, such as the most common ones: penicillin, amoxicillin and all the variations of the “-cillins”, because there are so many of them. Why are they not covered in this particular piece of legislation?

On this programming motion, should we put forward such an amendment to be considered at committee? If it is deemed non-votable at committee, why can it not be considered at report stage?

I guess I will only get through the programming motions, and I will have to come back later to finish talking about Bill C-64 and some of the things the minister said, as well as my concerns with the PMPRB, CADTH, pCPA and the entire architecture of drug approval in Canada.

The motion reads, “not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at the third reading stage, and 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders”, and it goes on like that, which basically means that there will be one day for final speeches, and then it will be done and sent to the other place. It is wrong to ram through a bill in this method, with bad faith being shown by the health minister, claiming that we were opposing it and not willing to consider things, when he has never bothered to listen.

Criminal Code

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard that a lot in this debate. We all want to be on the side of the angels. We all want to improve socio-economic conditions. The expert report does take structural vulnerabilities into account, and no assessor is authorized to grant a request for medical assistance in dying if there is any possibility that the request came about because of a structural vulnerability.

I paid close attention to my colleague's speech. Judging from the examples he gave, I gather he was in favour of Bill C‑14 for cases involving reasonably foreseeable death, but that he is against Bill C‑7 for people suffering from an incurable degenerative disease who are forced to cut their life short by suicide because their suffering has become intolerable. If Bill C‑7 is implemented, those people will be able to live until they reach the threshold of what they feel is tolerable.

Did I understand correctly that my colleague is against Bill C‑7 as it relates to degenerative diseases? I am curious, and I would like him to answer this question. He talked about it in his speech.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be joining debate on Bill C-62. Off the top, I will mention that I will be voting for it. Like the shadow minister for justice on the Conservative side said, this is about protecting the vulnerable. Though the federal government has dropped the ball in this latest iteration of its legislation, these three years, I hope, will be taken to basically fix the mistakes that were made all the way back to Bill C-14. I want to talk a little about what brought us to this moment, and then refer to some constituents of mine who have emailed me over the last few months on the issue of assisted suicide.

I will also mention that I am sharing my time with the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. I am sure he will add more to this debate.

To go back to the beginning, not too far to the beginning because I could get into Genesis, the Carter decision is what kicked off multiple debates that I have now been a part of. I have now seen this debate go from Bill C-14 to Bill C-7 to Bill C-62, and the attempts by my hon. colleague from Abbotsford, who, I think, tried to do right by vulnerable Canadians all across Canada to make sure that we would not see an expansion of the MAID provisions to those who are still suffering with mental health conditions.

The great thing about Hansard is that I was able to go all the way back and review what I had said on Bill C-14. I spent quite a bit of time complaining that the reasonably foreseeable clause would be knocked down by a court. It was knocked down by a court in the Truchon decision, because all our deaths are reasonably foreseeable; that is what living is all about. At the time, I had said that all of us who are born are born with one foot in our grave. One is assured one will die; one does not know just what it is, but it is reasonably foreseeable. I am just repeating it now. I know that it is morbid, but it is the truth. A lot of what we are dealing with here are issues of life and death and how one's death will happen. Therefore, at the time, this reasonably foreseeable clause would get knocked down, and it was knocked down in the Truchon decision.

My issues, just generally, are that, in a perfect world, this would not be necessary because people would not suffer. However, because this world is not perfect, people do suffer. People suffer in deep and different ways. Members know that I had a disabled daughter who passed away a few years ago. Had she lived longer, and I know at least one little girl in Calgary who has lived much longer with the same conditions my daughter had, she would be one of those vulnerable Canadians who would be facing the possibility that her physician, her specialist, might push for and might offer MAID.

I say “offer MAID”, but it seems so weird to say “offer MAID”, to offer something that I do not consider to be a medical service and to rush one's death sooner. Although we all die, as I said many Parliaments ago, the act of dying is not one that one does alone; it is done as a family, as a group of friends and with those loved ones around.

It is not something that happens in solitude. There are others who will miss one when one is gone. I know that it is difficult in a moment of suffering and a moment of great pain, or chronic pain, to believe it, to know it. A lot of the emails, the correspondence and the meetings I have had were with people who are worried about the assisted suicide MAID provisions, which the government has ineffectually dealt with through successive pieces of legislation. I think it was a grave error not to appeal the Truchon decision. I really do. I think it was a mistake. I said it to constituents at the time.

I have a Yiddish proverb, because I always do. They are great proverbs, and everybody should live by them and should know more of them. I just wish I could pronounce them in Yiddish: The truth never dies, but it is made to live as a beggar. This legislation is a beggar. This legislation should have been a permanent fix to the issues.

I think that Conservatives have suggested, both in committee and outside of committee, what some of those fixes would be. Although I disagree with an acronym, I will use RFND, reasonably foreseeable natural death. It should be limited to those who are terminally ill, where their death is foreseeable within the next six months, where there is a prognosis from a medical professional saying that one will indeed pass away.

For those most terrible conditions, I am thinking of a lot of cancers. My grandfather passed away from brain cancer in Canada, which brought my family to Canada. His death was very much reasonably foreseeable when it was terminal. There are others who have mental health conditions, which are caused by a physical condition. The mental health condition alone should not be the reason to seek assisted suicide.

Different Conservatives have mentioned, and I very much agree with this, that patients should be the ones requesting it. These are all things the government could have legislated into law. These are things that experts have said, and I want to read some of what the experts said in different committees.

Professor Trudo Lemmens and Mary Shariff persuasively rebutted a bunch of arguments that were made in Truchon. They noted again that reasonably foreseeable natural death applied to “all” persons, “not only to persons with disabilities”. “The judge in Truchon failed to appreciate how such a restriction reflects a constitutional duty to protect the equal value of the lives of all Canadians.”

I have read the Carter decision twice now. As many in the House know, this is something I take pride in saying that I am not a lawyer. I am not burdened with a legal education. I know the member for Fundy Royal is disappointed and that the member for St. Albert—Edmonton will be disappointed too, so I come to this as a layperson. Even the Carter decision did not say he had a right to die. It goes back to this idea, like I have said, that all of our deaths are reasonably foreseeable. It will happen; it is unavoidable in life.

These two experts said that the judge in Truchon made a mistake. This concept, this expertise, was then repeated in observations made by 72 disability rights organizations that penned a letter to the then justice minister. They said that reasonably foreseeable natural deaths are the ones where there is terminal illness that is coming up very quickly, and that this idea is an equalizing effect, guaranteeing a common thread among persons accessing MAID, assisted suicide, namely that they are dying within a very short time window. That is how I think this legislation should work. I am not saying there should be no MAID.

The Carter decision stands as a Supreme Court decision in Canada, so there has to be a provision of it in a method. It should be rare and should be restricted to the very few people for whom it was originally intended. I feel that Bill C-14 to Bill C-7 to the situation we are in today do not address that. That is why we have this legislation that is a beggar. It is not in the original form that it should be. The truth lies in abiding by what Carter decided.

Another one reads, “From a disability rights perspective, there is a grave concern that, if assisted dying is made available...regardless of whether they are close to death, a social assumption might follow (or be subtly reinforced) that it is better to be dead than to live with a disability.” That is a terrible message to send to persons with disabilities. I am thinking of my daughter, had she lived. That would have been a terrible message to send to her.

All three of my living kids have a chronic kidney condition. My boys will likely need a kidney transplants. What a terrible thing to tell them, that they are a burden on the medical situation and that maybe they should seek faster death. Is that what specialists are going to tell them when they are adults? I will not be in the room, but they will be in the room. Will that be pushed onto them? For those who are on dialysis, it is hard on their bodies to go three to four days a week to get dialysis in a hospital setting. I am not speaking of peritoneal dialysis that can be done in the home.

There have been lots of experts. The member for Fundy Royal explained a lot of what has been said on the issue. The government keeps erring in the wrong direction with more expansive legislation to allow more people to access something that was not the original intention of Carter. We should abide by Carter, as I mentioned before.

I have had constituents write to me. I just want to make sure that I read some of their thoughts into the record. Leanna wrote, “Please Halt the expansion of MAID to include those facing mental illness.” Catherine wrote, “As a parent who has seen my own children experience mental health challenges while in their teen years and early twenties, I am writing to express my deep concern about people with mental illness alone becoming eligible for medical assistance in dying. The move towards this will put countless vulnerable people at risk.”

Joe, in my riding, is a regular writer. I respond to most of his emails. I will send this to Joe just to make sure he knows I read his emails. His second and third points read, “By offering MAID for mental illness governments may put less money into treating mental illness.... Canadians may wish for MAID because of despair. They have not have been offered treatment for their mental illness.”

Cameron talked about a friend of his who is a nurse working in a mental health unit in Calgary. Mental health for him is all about seeing the intrinsic value of every human being, as celebrating the person not for what they contribute but for the beauty of their existence. He feels that once we stop seeing the dignity of one person, we will doubt our own worth and validity.

I know my time is running short, so I will not belabour this. I have heard comments from some members of the House who have tried to impugn a person's faith, religion or philosophical affiliations with whatever beliefs; although, all of us come to the House with our different beliefs. Some of them are sacred. Some of them are secular. It really does not matter where they come from, but all of us try to ascribe value to life, what that life is and what autonomy should be like.

To those members, I note that I did abstain from one vote that was specifically on advance directives because I have a constituent, Jim, who communicated with me over email that he and his spouse saw the experience of his mother, who passed away from Alzheimer's, and how terrible it was. In situations like that, it is incumbent upon the government to find a way to meet the requirements of the original Carter decision so that Jim and his spouse, when that time comes, can have their wishes met.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

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.

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.

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.

[Helen Long]

What we've heard is what we heard in testimony in terms of this issue. We're not clinicians, so we're not able to participate in all of those discussions, but it was certainly made very clear by the individuals representing the regulatory authorities in the provincial health authorities that they are ready and certainly that individual clinicians are ready.

When we look to Bill C-14 and the beginning of MAID, there was no time like this given for the provinces to be prepared in the way they are today. We are probably readier now than we've ever been to move ahead with MAID.

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, here we are again at the eleventh hour. The government has waited on something that it has to put in place; otherwise, on March 17, people whose only condition is a mental illness will be able to apply for medical assistance in dying.

The Liberals are not virgins in the parliamentary process. They understand very well that, typically, for a bill to go through three readings in the House and through committee meetings, and then go to the red chamber, where a similar number of readings and committee meetings take place, takes about 18 months. If there is goodwill among all parties and we agree, it may be six months. It is ludicrous to me that less than two months before the deadline, the government put forward this legislation. It is really putting a gun to the head of opposition members, because if we decide not to pass the bill, on March 17 people who suffer only from a mental illness will be able to receive medical assistance in dying.

I have a lot of compassion for people suffering from mental illness. In many cases, they have suicidal thoughts and are not full of hope for the future, so it is easy for them to say in despair that there is no way out. However, a lot of people get better and go on to live full lives. They are not in a place where they can really take that decision.

It is not the first time the government has waited until the last minute. I remember when the medical assistance in dying legislation in Bill C-14 was introduced, there was a lot of pressure for us to get along and pass the bill. I would have more confidence if it were not for the fact that the government continually brings forward legislation that is unconstitutional. Then it goes through the courts to the Supreme Court and, like Bill C-69, is declared unconstitutional. The bill for the welfare of indigenous children was also declared unconstitutional. It is our job to give due process to bills and to make sure they are a good idea, rather than just rubber-stamping them and passing them along.

I do not want to have the consequence that people who are mentally ill would receive MAID if we do not pass this legislation in time, but we have no guarantee that the Senate is not going to delay the bill. There was a question for the member who gave the last speech about how the Senate may choose to block the bill. That would delay it even further and we would not make the timeline. It is not a sure thing that the bill is going to get across the line.

We have to look back to the Carter decision. We spent a lot of time talking about what the response would be, and it was the court's order that the criteria be an irremediable condition with imminent death. That is the path we started on. I was very concerned at the time because every recommendation from the special committee that studied this said that without good-quality palliative care, one really does not have a choice.

At that point in time, I found out that only 30% of Canadians had access to palliative care. That is what prompted me to bring forward my private member's bill to get consistent access to palliative care for all Canadians. That bill unanimously passed in the House. Since then, we have doubled access, from 30% to almost 60%, which is a great thing, but there is more to go. If people do not have good-quality palliative care, they really do not have a real choice.

The government needs to refocus itself. I saw in the report that after five years of progress on palliative care, there are still identified gaps. The government needs to pursue that with passion and aggressiveness because that is the answer. If people have good-quality palliative care, they do not choose medical assistance in dying, and that applies everywhere. I met today with some of the representatives from palliative care, and they informed me that when people go to hospice, nine out of 10 of them are asking for medical assistance in dying, but very few of them actually take advantage of it once they experience palliative care.

Why are nine out of 10 of them asking for medical assistance in dying? It is because the doctors are recommending it, and I do not have any confidence that the safeguards that were supposed to be in place are actually being adhered to. A doctor from the Liberal Party who spoke before me cited five examples that he is aware of where clearly people did not meet the conditions but were given medical assistance in dying.

Canada is on a very slippery slope. If we look at the history of countries that have implemented medical assistance in dying, the Netherlands was sort of at the forefront, and it took a while for it to experience a rise in the percentage of people who were dying from medical assistance in dying. However, last year in Canada, 4% of people who died did so by medical assistance in dying. We set a world record. We are top of the charts on killing people with medical assistance in dying.

I think this is absolutely the wrong direction, so to broaden medical assistance in dying to include people who are mentally ill is absolutely ill-informed, at the very least. I would say, without being insensitive, that people who are mentally ill are actually able to kill themselves. Sadly, in their despair, many of them are taking their lives every day. They do not need the government to enable them.

The Conservatives warned the government, when this ill-advised amendment came from the Senate, that this would happen. Instead of realizing the mistake and backing off, the Liberal government is kicking the can down the road for another three years, where the next government will deal with it, instead of recognizing that this is not a good idea.

Doctors are saying that 50% of the time they cannot even identify whether somebody's condition, when they suffer from mental illness, is irremediable. If that is the case, then half of the time, they are going to kill someone who might have gotten better. This is a totally bad idea. The government should stand up, say it realizes the mistake it has made and that it should have introduced legislation to eliminate that mistake. However, that is not where we are today. Today, here we are: If we do not make a decision and pass the bill in a hurry, people with mental illness are going to start dying from MAID on March 17.

I would say that there is a lot scope creep that has been suggested. Where do we stop? There has been a suggestion that if we approve those with mental illness, maybe minors should be added, or maybe the option of advance directive should be added. It looks like the solution to all of these things is death. We hear that homeless people are requesting medical assistance in dying. We hear that veterans are being advised to take medical assistance in dying. This is just scope creep and broadening who is dying in this way, without having proper controls in place. I do not think that is acceptable.

One of the things that has been totally ignored is the conscience rights of doctors. The federal government will always say it did not preclude that in its bill, but the fact is that provinces are forcing medical doctors and nurses to participate, even if it is against their religion and their conscience rights, and the federal government has done nothing to correct that situation. That is a problem.

The other thing I would say is that in the creep that is happening, they have created an express lane for the disabled. It is disgusting to the disabled community and disgusting to me that they would say that if someone is disabled, they should go to the front of the line. For the vulnerable, the mentally ill and the disabled, we need to protect those people; we need to stand up for their rights and know that we can give them hope.

I do not agree with the way this was brought forward. I think the government should have appealed the Truchon decision. When Quebec decided this needed to happen, the government should have said no, that it had thought about it, studied it and spent a long time on it. It should have said it was going to appeal that decision, because what it brought in at the beginning was at least better than the scope creep we are seeing now.

I have talked about the many examples of things that are not good with the legislation. Obviously, I do not want to see anymore people die. I will definitely work with the government to see the legislation pass as speedily as possible, and I encourage it to use the same leverage it used on Bill C-234 to help its Liberal-appointed senators do what it wants. I hope it does the same on this bill and that it receives speedy passage, and that we do not have people with mental illness being killed by the government.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is possible that my colleague misunderstood me. What I said in my speech was that I voted for Bill C-14 because it was a reasonable response to what had to be addressed, which was the Carter decision. The reasonable foreseeability of death was a problem clause, and I thought so at the time. I thought it was awkward and perhaps not the best way to put it, so it was not a shock to me that it ended up being challenged on that basis. I think my colleague may have been overestimating my enthusiasm for Bill C-14, but I did support it, because something had to be done.

However, this reckless expansion that came after the Senate amendments to Bill C-7 goes way beyond this. No court was calling upon Parliament or forcing Parliament to expand the eligibility of MAID to those whose sole underlying health condition is mental illness.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is claiming that Bill C-14 resulted in good legislation with its reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion. However, that did not even address the Carter ruling, since Ms. Carter did not have a condition that made her terminally ill. The Supreme Court ordered Parliament to regulate situations like those of Ms. Carter and Ms. Taylor. Limiting medical assistance in dying to people who are terminally ill completely ignores people like Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon, who had to go to court to assert their constitutional right. People have had to go on hunger strikes to meet the reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion.

Is that what my colleague calls compassion?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Salaberry—Suroît is a tough act to follow. This is not easy, because we all have someone in mind when we talk about this. We have all lost loved ones over the past few months and years. We all have gone through different experiences. Some people request medical assistance in dying, others do not, but one thing is certain: this is a very sensitive topic. It is with great humility and sensitivity that I rise today to speak to Bill C-62, an act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), no. 2, something we have been talking about for a long time.

We must act by considering the fact that, currently, the Government of Quebec's Bill 11 does not include non-neurocognitive mental disorders as being eligible for medical assistance in dying and that Quebec wants to fill the administrative void surrounding the federal government's position on the subject of mental disorders relative to neurocognitive disorders. Therefore, I am not here to repeat my whip's testimony. I am here to provide some background and talk about Quebec's specificities. I will close by going into more detail about the Bloc's position.

First, in 2014, Quebec passed the Act Respecting End-of-Life care after five years of consultations and of working together across party lines. I want to emphasize that the work was non-partisan. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruling in Carter indicated that some provisions of the Criminal Code that prohibited medical assistance in dying contravened the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 2016, the Liberal government passed Bill C-14, in response to Carter. In 2019, the Quebec Superior Court ruled in favour of Nicole Gladu and Jean Truchon, who claimed that excluding people whose death was not reasonably foreseeable from eligibility for medical assistance in dying was discriminatory. As a result, the court ordered that federal and provincial laws be amended before December 18, 2020.

In 2021, after a pandemic-related delay, Parliament passed Bill C‑7, which created two pathways to medical assistance in dying: One for those whose death is reasonably foreseeable and one for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. Quebec simply chose to drop the end-of-life criterion. Bill C‑7 required that an expert panel be created to review MAID and mental illness. The Expert Panel on MAID and Mental Illness was formed in August 2021 and produced a final report containing 19 recommendations. Recognizing that the legislation was flawed and that issues related to medical assistance in dying remained unresolved, Bill C-7 created the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, composed of members of the Senate and members of the House of Commons, which had a five-part mandate.

The joint committee tabled an interim report on June 22, 2022. There was not much time between the tabling of the joint committee's report, which was initially expected in 2022, and the March 17, 2023, deadline for excluding people from MAID for mental illness, so members postponed eligibility for one year to allow the committee to finish its work. The goal was to give the professions involved more time to develop standards of practice. At last, in February 2024, the joint committee produced its final report. The report contains only one recommendation. Bill C‑62 implements the report's recommendation by postponing eligibility for MAID MD-SUMC, for mental disorders, for three years and by forcing the creation of a joint committee one year before the report.

Sections 241.1 to 241.4 of the Criminal Code govern medical assistance in dying in Canada. What is more, under the law, the government is required to oversee the use of medical assistance in dying via the Regulations for the Monitoring of Medical Assistance in Dying. I am providing all of this background to illustrate that the government could have and should have taken action a long time ago.

Second, in Quebec, medical assistance in dying is governed by the Act Respecting End-of-Life Care. The activities surrounding medical assistance in dying are supervised by the select committee on end-of-life care. In June 2023, the National Assembly of Quebec passed Bill 11 to expand access to medical assistance in dying in Quebec and harmonize Quebec's legislation with the Criminal Code. There are some notable changes to Quebec's legislation. Minister Sonia Bélanger and her colleagues Roberge and Jolin‑Barette held a press conference on February 7 calling on the government to include a provision in the Criminal Code that would allow Quebec to move forward with advance requests, because, even though Quebec's legislation allows it, the Criminal Code does not.

Although doctors who choose to go ahead with advance requests are unlikely to be prosecuted by Quebec's attorney general, the risk of a civil lawsuit is still there, and that will make many doctors think twice about granting advance requests. Quebec's National Assembly has passed a unanimous motion demanding that the federal government legislate on the issue.

Third, the Bloc Québécois will vote for the bill on the condition that the postponement is for one year, not three. The Bloc Québécois believes that eligibility for people suffering from mental disorders must be postponed so that Quebec, the provinces and professional bodies can create a framework for their MAID practices. However, it should not be postponed indefinitely. The Bloc Québécois believes that postponing eligibility by three years will prolong the suffering of individuals who could be eligible for MAID and is contrary to their rights as guaranteed by the charters. The Bloc Québécois wishes to point out that the report of the Expert Panel on MAID and Mental Illness, as well as the Collège des médecins du Québec, emphasized that the safeguards—namely irremediability, severe physical or mental suffering, and free and informed consent—currently provided for in the Criminal Code are sufficient to allow access to MAID where mental disorder is the only underlying condition.

In our supplementary opinion attached to the report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, the Bloc Québécois points out that, even though preparations on the ground for medical assistance in dying when a mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition are not yet complete across Canada, this does not change the fact that several professional associations, including the Collège des médecins du Québec and the Association des médecins psychiatres du Québec, would still like it to be made available in the future.

The Bloc Québécois also acknowledges the requests made by several provinces to postpone eligibility. It should be noted that many countries have adopted policies on medical assistance in dying specifically for mental disorders.

The Bloc Québécois deplores the government's failure to be proactive and the Conservatives' obstruction on the issue of medical assistance in dying when a mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition and on the issue of advance requests. We fear for the patients who will have to turn to the courts to assert their rights while also bearing the burden of their illness.

Finally, the Bloc Québécois condemns the fact that this bill does not distinguish between mental disorders and neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Quebec's law makes that distinction. It would allow people suffering from the latter category to access medical assistance in dying, as advocated by the Quebec government. In the Bloc's opinion, the social consensus on these illnesses is stronger, and it would have liked to see the Criminal Code brought into line with Quebec's end-of-life care law by allowing advance requests.

In his supplementary opinion on MAID, the member for Montcalm, whom I would like to congratulate for all his work on this issue, went into great detail on the reasons that justify MAID when a mental disorder is the sole underlying condition. The position of the Collège des médecins du Québec perfectly sums up the importance of allowing advance requests for medical assistance in dying, as well as medical assistance in dying when a mental disorder is the sole underlying condition. While admitting it needs more time to ensure its members are ready, the Collège des médecins du Québec has established five guidelines for assessing eligibility for medical assistance in dying.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois has a humanist view of medical assistance in dying that is grounded in philosophical principles and ethical arguments that reflect the evolution of Quebec society. Medical assistance in dying recognizes the right of individuals to choose for themselves, to determine the conditions for a healthy and dignified life. Medical advances allow us to sustain life, but that does not preclude the need and right of the individual to define what is an acceptable life. Section 1 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms states that every human being has a “right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom”.

Quebec society believes that the right to life includes the right to die. In that context, we need to see medical assistance in dying as a right that gives the individual the option of avoiding terminal suffering and medical paternalism in order to maintain their dignity. By allowing medical assistance in dying, we allow people to choose how, when and where they want to pass away.

Medical assistance in dying only makes sense if the person's free and informed consent is respected. The word “free” means voluntary and without constraint, and the word “informed” means with all the information needed to make such a decision. Meeting this condition is necessary for accessing medical assistance in dying.

The principles we stand for concerning medical assistance in dying are equally valid in cases of mental illness. Let us not forget that the possibility of access to MAID does not mean automatic eligibility. However, when the Quebec select committee was doing its work, it made a distinction between mental disorders and neurodegenerative diseases. The commission concluded that although there was no consensus on mental disorders, there was a consensus on neurodegenerative diseases. With that in mind, the Quebec government opened the door to advance requests. Advance requests allow an individual to determine the conditions under which MAID should be administered when they have lost the capacity to consent because of their illness.

In its second report, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying expressed its support for advance requests. All parties, except the Conservatives, who are against any form of medical assistance in dying, voted in favour of the recommendations.

As a final point, the federal government therefore has no reason to drag its feet or to deny Quebec's request.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. Having been in this place for all the debates we have had, I have been trying to figure out the best way to explain to Canadians, if there is an argument here, why it is not between Liberals and Conservatives, or between Greens and NDP and Conservatives and the Bloc. It has actually been, from the very beginning, a struggle for Parliament to actually deal with an issue we have been kicking down the road for too long.

I mentioned earlier in debate, as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the quiet and extraordinary courage of a single woman, Sue Rodriguez, who took her irremediable medical condition of suffering all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and was denied the opportunity for what is generally called death with dignity. She had the procedure illegally. Those who were with her at the time would have been subject to criminal penalty as well, including my friend Svend Robinson, who at the time was member of Parliament in a different party from a different place.

It was a very fraught time, and the issue of medical assistance in dying kept coming back to me from constituents who were heartbroken that their parents or loved ones had to go through suffering. Quite often people would say to me they would not let a family pet go through this kind of suffering so why do we allow our moms and our dads to go through this when there is no prospect they are going to recover.

This finally went back to the Supreme Court of Canada for a different decision that came out of the Carter case. The Carter case, back in 2015, said that refusing to allow someone the legal option to seek medical assistance from their doctor in a situation where their illness is terminal is really a violation of section 7 charter rights. I only mention this because that was also with a deadline. We have to take action on this; we cannot just leave the matter. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that this provision of the Criminal Code is actually a charter violation. That means one cannot let it just sit there anymore.

It would take too much time, and my colleagues will be relieved to know I will not go through this chapter and verse, but it is a tough, tough issue for parliamentarians. At the time, as we started debating the first iteration of allowing for death with dignity, in Bill C-14, our first Minister of Justice to deal with this was the very honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould. She had to struggle with this. Our Minister of Health at the time, also very honourable, Jane Philpott, was struggling with this.

It occurred to me as the debate went on that what we had in Canada on this issue was essentially a professional dispute. The lawyers in Canada wanted to make sure that the charter was respected. The doctors in Canada said they did not want to be asked to figure out what “irremediable” meant and were not exactly ready for that. Therefore, subsequent revisions kept happening because, after all, in our first attempt to get medical assistance in dying right, we did not allow for advance directives. Therefore, we had subsequent court cases where people who had terminal cancer could not access MAID because they decided they better ask for it now, which was maybe months before death would occur naturally and months before a doctor could say, “Okay, you're ready now. Nod.” One had to be able to physically sign; the day of, one had to confirm one's procedure.

Again, I better not go back through all of this, but essentially the professional views of doctors pleading with parliamentarians outweighed the lawyers dealing with parliamentarians to say that we were probably still going to have charter violations, but it is better that we listen to the doctors and that they are ready. All of this ended up taking us back to fixing medical assistance in dying again to try to make it more humane, to try to respond to the concerns of Canadians from coast to coast that they wanted to be able to access an advance directive in a situation that fit the MAID template. This brought us to Bill C-7.

To some of the comments that were made in this place earlier today, the government and Parliament were under a deadline that was court imposed, not politically imposed, to oblige ourselves, as parliamentarians, to meet what the Supreme Court of Canada said the charter required us to do. We had a very tight timeline, and then the Senate did something I do not think anyone in the House expected.

Again, we had a professional dispute going on here. Doctors were saying they were not ready to extend this to people whose sole irremediable condition is mental illness. Public health professionals in addiction and mental health were saying they were not ready. However, with strong pressure and strong professional advice from the psychiatric community, the Senate decided we should extend MAID to those with an underlying condition that is only, and I do not say “only” as if it is a marginal or trivial matter, a crushingly painful and life-ending threat from mental illness.

We are walking this fine line. The line is even finer when we start realizing who is more likely to not be able to access mental health supports; they are the marginalized and the poor. Who is more likely to not be able to imagine continuing on in life with a crushing mental illness? It is again the marginalized communities. The disability community spoke with a loud voice saying not to extend MAID as they were worried enough that it was a slippery slope when Bill C-14 first came in, and now Bill C-7.

Here we are again with a court-imposed deadline. Let us be clear to Canadians watching today. Certainly, the provinces and many doctors and mental health professionals have spoken with one voice. If we do not act quickly to pass this legislation and if the Senate does not act quickly to get it to royal assent come March 17, then as a matter of reality, we are up against March 17, and medical assistance in dying would become available to people where mental illness is the sole underlying condition.

Is it irremediable? We are told by the experts that no one really knows how to answer that question. Yes, some of the psychiatric community says the safeguards are there and if three psychiatrists say that it is irremediable, then that is enough. However, we are all asking where the mental health supports are, particularly for those who are marginalized. Where is the access?

This is one that particularly perturbs me. I have had many people come to me from a community that has experience with using psilocybin, conventionally known as magic mushrooms, as a way to alleviate a mental health condition, which might otherwise be irremediable, with remarkable results. We know that Health Canada is currently accelerating trials on psilocybin. It strikes me as beyond a catch-22 that the authorities would say to those people and to their doctors, who think psilocybin could help them, when the alternative is that they are more likely to commit suicide, or if we do not act by March 17, they will have access to legal medical assistance in dying, and it would be too dangerous to let them try psilocybin, but the alternative is death. It seems to me that any medical risks from psilocybin pale in comparison to the irreversible reality of death. How can we let this happen? We cannot.

I think we need to discuss another thing in this place, which is societal assistance in living. We know what medical assistance in dying looks like, but what does societal assistance in living look like? It means ending poverty and bringing in a guaranteed livable income for all. It means access to mental health services in this country. It means a compassionate and caring approach that says to every Canadian, whether in the disability community, the indigenous communities or the youth who are struggling with addictions, that we hear them and will not fail them. That means, no matter how members feel about it, we have to pass this legislation expeditiously.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, my friend, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country, and I share many of the concerns expressed today. This is one of those issues on which I would beg everyone in this place not to seek partisan advantage.

The divide we have here is really the most non-partisan thing of all: the structure of our Parliament, the Westminister system, whereby we still have the equivalent of the House of Lords; that is, the Senate. The Senate put in Bill C-14 that medical assistance in dying be available to those whose underlying medical condition is a mental health condition only. Everyone here, regardless of partisanship, is struggling to make sure Canadians do not seek access to medical assistance in dying if there is another option that allows them to continue to live. It is not partisan.

I would like comments from my hon. friend.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, this has become an issue, because it was inserted in the legislation at Bill C-14 by the Senate. Does the hon. member have any knowledge of what attitude the Senate is going to take?

We are operating under the gun here. We have to do something before March 17. Do we have any indication of whether the Senate will, once the House dispatches this matter, take it up quickly?