Bill C-390

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (provincial medical assistance in dying framework)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide that medical assistance in dying may be provided under a provincial framework that allows a person who has an illness that will deprive them of the capacity to consent to care to make an advance request for such assistance.

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government of the day is the one that calls the shots. When parliamentarians have the opportunity to look at Bill C‑390, the Conservatives will be delighted to scrutinize it.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, we look forward to studying Bill C‑390 in the House and in committee when the time comes.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not have the same attitude problem that others had toward the Speaker this morning, so I sincerely apologize.

Why did the Bloc Québécois not take this opportunity, knowing that it would change things in Quebec? They know it would. The Bloc introduced Bill C‑390 on May 22, 2024. However, it waited until the day after this measure was implemented in Quebec to alert everyone and accuse us of being heartless. What the Bloc Québécois and its leader put up as bargaining chips is a bill on supply management and a bill on pensions. If the member is unable to convince his own leader to move forward and he is unable to convince him of the urgency, what makes him think he can hastily convince us to move forward with this today? It is a fantasy. It is totally irresponsible. I invite the member to tone it down, stop insulting us and take a look in his own back yard. What is the Bloc Québécois's strategy for moving its Bill C‑390 forward?

This eminently sensitive and complex issue touches on individual values. I was a member of Parliament in Quebec City when the debate started back in the early 2000s. I was present when the vote took place, and I voted in favour of it. I was also there when MAID was implemented. The debate was not over in a day. It simply got the ball rolling. People sat down together, thought things through together and talked together. A multi-party committee was struck. After that, people reached a position and decided to move forward with MAID. Parliament had spoken. Some people in my own political party in Quebec City voted against it. That was all right, because this debate touches on deeply entrenched and personal beliefs, and matters of conscience. I think that is important to highlight.

In politics there is partisanship. The Conservative Party gets blamed for a lot of things, so I am going to correct a few points. As far as health is concerned, my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rose to say how bad and dangerous we are on issues of health. I would like to remind the House of another event I witnessed. When Prime Minister Harper was in charge, it is thanks to him that Quebec had its first asymmetrical agreement with the federal government. My colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière was there. I was in Quebec City and I saw that. The Conservative Party is a party that listens to the provinces and has demonstrated over the years its concern for respecting and accommodating the provinces.

Throughout my career, I've had to make some decisions that were much easier than others. For example, as labour minister, I changed labour standards and the Labour Code. That was a huge undertaking, but it was easier for the government than moving forward with medical assistance in dying. Nobody said this was an easy file. What I am saying today is that we need to be careful. Rushing this will get us nowhere fast, and we have no right to be anything less than thorough as we consider such an important issue.

At the end of the day, what do Canadians expect us to do? They expect us to make good decisions.

Had we acted quickly and thoughtlessly, we would have gone along with the current Liberal government's haphazard approach and ended up in the unbelievably absurd position of allowing MAID for people whose only illness is a mental disorder. Faced with that, we raised a red flag and insisted on waiting because we were not ready. We studied the issue and convinced the government not to bring it into effect on March 17, 2023, as set out in the act. We managed to extend the deadline by one year, to March 17, 2024. In the end, the decision was made to wait three years.

In conclusion, it is always better to take a little more time than to make irreversible mistakes.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and a pleasure to speak in the House and to have the privilege of doing so. It is extraordinary. Every time I have the opportunity to speak, I am extremely grateful to my constituents.

We are talking about medical assistance in dying, which is an issue that I am very familiar with because, in another life and in another Parliament, I had the opportunity to reflect on it in a non-partisan way. Quite honestly, it was a very important moment, if not the most important moment, of my political career in the Quebec legislature.

I listened to the member for Montcalm's speech. I am not trying to take away from what he is doing or saying. I am not trying to take away from all of the hard work, to use a Liberal expression, that he has put into the issue of medical assistance in dying. However, what I will not accept this morning is parliamentarians being insulted with regard to this issue.

I am a Conservative well known in Quebec for my position on medical assistance in dying. My Conservative colleagues know that. Everyone knows that. It is no secret. However, we should not be told that we lack courage or compassion just because we are not like him or because some people in the House do not think like him. That is not the way to convince all parliamentarians and political parties to move forward on this issue.

I am sorry, but in my personal and professional experience as an MNA and minister in Quebec, that is not how things were done. That is not how the commissions in Quebec City were run. It worked across party lines. People discussed things together. I never heard any insults.

It is true that, as of yesterday, advance requests are allowed in Quebec. If it was so important to the member for Montcalm and the Bloc Québécois, why did the leader of the Bloc Québécois not use the leverage he had when he held the balance of power? When the NDP tore up its agreement, why did the Bloc Québécois not use Bill C‑390 as a bargaining chip with the Liberals to keep them in power? Is this true or false?

Today, the hon. member rose in the House. I know he is sincere in what he is doing. I know him. I sat with him in Quebec City. I am wondering why he is the one rising on this issue and not the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, since it is her bill. However, that is another matter. It is a pity because we would have liked to hear from Ms. Bérubé on this issue—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was not calling the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader ignorant. I was alluding to his ignorance of Bill C‑390. This ignorance of the bill means he cannot understand that it is the most reasonable solution. We respect the fact that some provincial legislatures need to have more debate within their parliamentary democracy. That does not stop those that are ready and have developed a legislative framework from moving forward.

Contrary to what the member is saying, I know this file. I worked with people from across the country. He is the one who is not in step with Canadians; most of them agree with these advance requests. He does not know that.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I think that this is an important addition to the debate on this point of order. In his speech, the parliamentary secretary said that he was not up to date, had not read Bill C‑390, and was unaware.

Members cannot do indirectly what they cannot do directly. Since the parliamentary secretary referred to himself as ignorant, should he withdraw his remarks?

[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—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is somewhat interesting that the member believes there are individuals in the House who have a full and comprehensive understanding of all private members' bills on the Order Paper. I suspect that she has knowledge of maybe 50% of them. That is being exceptionally generous. If I am wrong, she can stand up on a point of order and tell me that I am wrong.

The reality is that I found out about this debate just over an hour ago. For members to say that I do not know Bill C-390 and to diminish the importance of the issue at hand, which the House has to talk about, does a disservice to all parliamentarians. If the Bloc members genuinely want to have a healthy, strong debate on Bill C-390, at the very least, they could have raised it on an opposition day. They could have raised the issue weeks or months ago and said that they would like to have that debate.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am so angry at what I have been hearing over the past 20 minutes. The parliamentary secretary to the government leader clearly showed his ignorance when it comes to advance requests. He showed his ignorance and lack of knowledge. He does not even know what is in Bill C‑390, which was tabled here in May 2024. He said he is not familiar with its content, which offers a solution for provinces that are prepared to accept medical aid in dying and to protect doctors in the case of advance requests. He showed his ignorance.

That is what makes me angry. The government is lazy. It should be ashamed to abandon people who are suffering from Alzheimer's disease and can make an advance request in Quebec. No doctor will want to do that because the government will not put its big boy pants on.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, before I get under way, I would like to comment on the member's last statement. He pointed out the Conservative Party's resistance to the issue. I believe it is Bill C-390 that the Bloc is advocating for and advancing, which attempts to deal with the issue. This is the first time I am hearing it on the floor of the House. I would have thought Bloc members would have raised the issue with the leadership teams in the hope that we might be able to work together on Bill C-390 and, at the very least, how it might be incorporated into some of the consultations.

There is absolutely no doubt this is a very important issue. Since 2015, when the Supreme Court decided on the issue, it has been a hot topic for parliamentarians on all sides of the House. We have seen a great deal of compassion and emotion, and understandably so.

Before I get into the substance of the report, I want to refer to why we find ourselves again talking about this concurrence report. For issues of the day that are really important to caucus strategies, or the desire to have a public discussion, we have what we call opposition days. We need to contrast concurrence reports, including the one today that the Bloc has brought forward, with opposition day motions that are brought forward. We will find there is a stark difference. The Bloc is not alone. It will bring forward a motion or a concurrence report and say how important it is that we debate it, yet it is never given any attention on opposition days, when not only could the concurrence report be debated, but the opposition day motion could instruct an action of some form or another.

Why are we debating it today? I would suggest it is because of an action taken a number of weeks ago. We need to ask ourselves why there has been no discussion on Bill C-71, the Citizenship Act, which we started the session with. Everyone but the Conservatives supports that act. There is Bill C-66, where sexual abuses taking place within the military could be shifted over to the civil courts. My understanding is that every political party supports that legislation.

There is Bill C-33 regarding rail and marine safety and supply lines, which is very important to Canada's economy. There is Bill C-63, the online harms bill. Last night, members talked about the importance of protecting children from the Internet, and yet the government introduced Bill C-63, the online harms act. We are trying to have debates in the House of Commons on the legislation I just listed. It does not take away from the importance of many other issues, such as the one today regarding MAID. MAID is an important issue, and I know that. We all know that.

Yesterday, a concurrence report on housing was debated. Housing is also a very important issue, I do not question that, but we have well over 100 reports in committees at report stage. If we were to deal with every one of those reports, not only would we not have time for government legislation, but we would not have time for opposition days either, not to mention confidence votes. I am okay with that, as long as we get the budget passed through. We have to ask why we are preventing the House of Commons from being able to do the things that are important to Canadians. That can be easily amplified by looking at the behaviour of the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives will stand up today and talk about MAID, as well they should; I will too. However, there is no doubt that they are happy to talk about that issue today only because it feeds into their desire to prevent the government from having any sort of debate on legislation, let alone attempting to see legislation pass to committee. The Conservative Party is more concerned about its leader and the Conservative Party agenda than the agenda of Canadians and the types of things we could be doing if the official opposition party would, for example, allow its motion to actually come to a vote.

We are debating this concurrence motion because the Conservatives have frustrated the other opposition parties to the degree that we are sick and tired of hearing Conservatives stand up repeatedly, over 100 of them now, on the privilege issue, preventing any and all types of debate. So, as opposed to listening to Conservatives speak on something that is absolutely useless, we are ensuring that at least there is some debate taking place on important issues, such as MAID and housing.

Members of all political stripes need to realize the games the Conservatives are playing come at great expense to Canadians. The motion of privilege is to send the issue to PROC. Every member in the House supports that except for the Conservatives, yet it is a Conservative motion. They are filibustering and bringing the House to standstill, unless we are prepared to think outside the box and bring in a motion for concurrence. The concurrence motion, no doubt, is better than listening to the Conservatives continue to repeat speeches.

I attempted to address their speeches in great detail weeks ago. It is time we change the channel. It is time the Leader of the Opposition started putting Canadians and the nation's best interests ahead of his own personal interests and the Conservative Party of Canada's interests. We need to start talking about issues that Canadians want to hear about.

I was pleased when the member from the Bloc made reference to indications that the Province of Quebec wants to move forward on this issue. My understanding is that the province is even taking substantial actions towards it. Advance requests for MAID have been on the table and been discussed. We need to recognize it is not only Ottawa that plays a role in regard to MAID and its implementation. Our primary role is with the Criminal Code and how we might be able to make changes to it.

Members, no matter what region they come from, have to appreciate that Canada is a vast country in which there is an obligation to consult with the different provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, community advocates, health care professionals and Canadians. There is an obligation to do that, especially around the type of legislation the member of the Bloc is trying to change.

I was hoping to get a second question from the member, because he made reference to Bill C-390. I am not familiar with its background. It is probably completely related to the advance requests for MAID. The member, in his question to me, could maybe expand on what exactly the bill is proposing. I would ask, in regard to it, to what degree the member has done his homework. Doing the homework means going outside the province of Quebec. All provinces have something to say about the issue. Many people who were born in Quebec live in other jurisdictions, just as many people who were born in other parts of the country now call Quebec home.

We have an obligation to not take legislation dealing with issues like MAID lightly. Just because one jurisdiction is advancing it more quickly than another jurisdiction, or because one jurisdiction is demanding it, it does not necessarily mean Ottawa can buy into it at the snap of its fingers. That is not to take anything away from Quebec. On a number of fronts, Quebec has led the nation. I could talk about issues like $10-a-day child care, a national program that the Prime Minister and government, with solid support from the Liberal caucus, have advanced and put into place, and every province has now agreed to it. The MAID file is a good example where Quebec is probably leading, in pushing the envelope, more than any other province, as it did with child care. Other jurisdictions take a look at other aspects.

Health care, today, is a national program that was implemented by a national Liberal government, but the idea that predated it came from Tommy Douglas. Its practical implementation was demonstrated in the province of Saskatchewan. As a government, we continue to support health care in a very real and tangible way. By contrast, we can take a look at the Conservatives on health care and the concerns we have in terms of a threat to health care. We have invested $198 billion in health care. That ensures future generations can feel comfortable in knowing the federal government will continue to play a strong role in health care. Why is that relevant to the debate today? For many of the individuals who are, ultimately, recipients of MAID, it is an issue of long-term care, hospice care.

When my grandmother passed away in the 1990s, in St. Boniface Hospital, it was a very difficult situation. We would have loved to have had hospice care provided for her, but it did not happen. That does not take anything away from the fantastic work that health care workers provide in our system, but there she sat in a hospital setting, which was was questionable in terms of dying with dignity.

Health care and long-term care matter. With respect to my father's passing, it was Riverview and it was a totally different atmosphere because it provided hospice care. Health care matters when we talk about MAID. What the Government of Canada is bringing forward is recognition that we cannot change things overnight, but at least we are moving forward.

Back in 2015, when the Supreme Court made a decision, former prime minister Stephen Harper did absolutely nothing in terms of dealing with the issue of MAID, and the current leader of the Conservative Party was a major player during that whole Stephen Harper era. It put us into a position where, virtually immediately after the federal election, we had to take action, and we did. I remember vividly when members of Parliament shared stories in Centre Block. I remember the emotions. I remember many of my colleagues sitting on the committee that listened to Canadians from across the country with respect to the issue. We all talked to constituents and conveyed their thoughts in Ottawa. We were able to bring in and pass legislation, the first ever for Canada, that dealt with the issue.

In 2021, we actually updated the legislation that dealt with persons whose death was not reasonably foreseeable. We are making changes, but it has to be done in a fashion that is fair, reasonable and responsible.

We want to hear from Canadians. We want to hear what the different provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, stakeholders, doctors, nurses, those who are providing that direct care and the families have to say. This is a very personal decision that people have to make at very difficult times in their lives. We should not be taking it for granted in any fashion whatsoever.

That is the reason, once again, we have another special joint standing committee that hopefully will be starting its work in November, with the idea of doing something tangible over six or eight weeks, whatever it takes, so it can bring something back to the House to deal with advance requests for MAID. That seems to be the focal point of what the Bloc is talking about today.

I want to come back to some of my other comments in regard to the government's recognition of the importance of the issue of MAID. We have done that since 2015. We continue to recognize it and work with Canadians and the many different stakeholders, and we are committed to continuing to do that. It is unfortunate that because of the games being played by the leader of the Conservative Party and by members of the Conservative Party of Canada, the government is not able to continue to have important legislation debated, legislation like the Citizenship Act, the issue of military court to civil court with respect to sexual abuse, online harms act and the rail and marine safety act. All of these are so important.

I am asking the Conservative Party of Canada to stop focusing on its leader's best interests and to start thinking of Canadians' best interests. I am asking it to stop the filibuster and allow legislation, at the very least, to get to committee so Canadians can have their say.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say it depends on what the government wants. If it wants to sidestep the issue, buy time, or simply call an election and not have to do anything beforehand, then yes, have a national conversation.

Really, all the government has to do is take Bill C‑390 and introduce a similar bill. That would allow legislatures to move forward if they are ready. Those that need to debate the issue will debate it and, when they are ready, advance requests will be allowed in those provinces.

I do not understand why the government wants to convince people before the debate even takes place in the provinces. It is not up to one government, whatever its political stripe, to decide for everyone. For example, I would have no issue with this becoming a provincial election issue.

[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.

Justice

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as of today, Quebec will allow advance requests for MAID. Finally, patients diagnosed with a serious and incurable illness that will lead to incapacity can submit a request to their doctor.

However, doctors are still worried about the lack of legal protection because this government is cowardly and refuses to amend the Criminal Code. The Liberals are playing a dangerous game, one that is hurting both patients and doctors worried about potential lawsuits.

Will the Prime Minister show some humanity and amend the Criminal Code without further delay to allow advance requests, as proposed in Bill C‑390?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Ms. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is not proposing preferential treatment under the Criminal Code. It is proposing a procedure to strictly regulate end-of-life care.

Our Bill C‑390 simply allows provinces that have passed legislation, and that are ready, to move forward with advance requests free from risk. It respects the provinces' pace. It respects health care workers. It respects the right of sick people to control their own bodies and receive care. The government has been dragging its feet for the past year and a half.

When is it going to take action?

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in light of what I said earlier about the difference between the social values and legal traditions of Quebec and Canada, will the minister commit to supporting the spirit of the bill that was introduced by my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou? This bill responds to the aspirations of the Quebec National Assembly and also to the will of the vast majority of Quebeckers. It seeks to allow advance requests for medical assistance in dying in Quebec.