House of Commons Hansard #25 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was medical.

Topics

HousingOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

York South—Weston Ontario

Liberal

Ahmed Hussen LiberalMinister of Families

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to talk about the national housing strategy, which reintroduced federal leadership in housing after 10 years of inaction by that party when it was in government.

We have ensured that we introduced programs to build more affordable rental stock into the market and more social housing. We signed bilateral agreements with provinces and territories. We introduced the first-time home buy incentive so that the dream of home ownership could be within reach for middle-class Canadians.

Forestry IndustryOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON

Mr. Speaker, forestry contributes over $20 billion to the Canadian economy and employs over 200,000 people. The industry also plays a role in protecting our environment, as forest products are an effective way of storing captured carbon.

This is why many Canadians are concerned with the Liberal plan to restrict 25% of Canada's land from development. Reducing the amount of forest land available for harvest would negatively impact our economic and environmental prosperity.

Could the Minister of Natural Resources confirm whether this plan will impact areas that are currently accessible for harvest, yes or no?

Forestry IndustryOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

North Vancouver B.C.

Liberal

Jonathan Wilkinson LiberalMinister of Environment and Climate Change

Mr. Speaker, we were incredibly proud of the work that was done between 2015 and 2019 to meet our protected area targets of 10% marine and 17% terrestrial protection. That is critically important in terms of protecting biodiversity in the country, and we worked with all sectors, including the forestry sector and the provinces and territories in doing so.

We have now established a 25% by 2025 target. We will continue to work actively with the provinces and territories, with all sectors, very much including the forestry sector, to ensure we are protecting spaces for years to come, but doing so in a manner that is economically sensitive.

LabourOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians know that maintaining a proper work-life balance can often be difficult.

In my riding of Vimy, families in Laval work hard to balance the demands of work, family, and mental, physical and emotional health. Canadians want the government to reflect on the importance of this crucial issue.

Could the Minister of Labour tell us what this government is doing in terms of work-life balance?

LabourOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas Ontario

Liberal

Filomena Tassi LiberalMinister of Labour

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Vimy has asked a very important question. Our government understands the importance of work-life balance.

We have been working hard for Canadian workers. We have expanded leave provisions for families. We have created new leaves. We have enshrined flexible work arrangements and restored fair and balanced labour relations.

Moving forward, we will modernize health and safety standards, implementing mental health protections.

PharmacareOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, a woman I met in Fort St. James worked for 25 years at the saw mill. She told me that when she was laid off, she lost all her benefits. Now she cannot afford the drugs she needs for her arthritis.

Like the one in five Canadians who cannot afford medication, she has been left behind by the government.

The NDP is ready with a plan to make universal, public, single-payer pharmacare a reality and save Canadians and our health system billions.

Will the minister support our plan for pharmacare?

PharmacareOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Dartmouth—Cole Harbour Nova Scotia

Liberal

Darren Fisher LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, we are open to collaborating with members of the opposition. We are open to collaboration with members of the NDP. We will look very seriously at this bill. We will work toward coming up with things we can work together on to move forward for a national pharmacare for all Canadians.

HealthOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Green

Jenica Atwin Green Fredericton, NB

Mr. Speaker, one in five Canadians suffer from a mental health problem or illness in any given year. Mental illness-related costs in Canada are over $50 billion annually.

Social costs are high. People with serious mental illness are at greater risk of living in poverty.

The Minister of Finance has been tasked with setting national standards for access to mental health services.

Could the minister confirm that the upcoming budget will include funding for a national framework that will allow Canadians to access a variety of mental health professionals, including counsellors, and will empower provinces and territories to work together for action on this important issue?

HealthOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Central Nova Nova Scotia

Liberal

Sean Fraser LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the health of Canadians is a top priority for constituents in every riding from coast to coast to coast.

During the recent federal election campaign, we committed to put billions of dollars to support not just mental health, but to improve access to primary care, to implement pharmacare and to improve in-home care for seniors.

I look forward to continuing my conversations with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to implement a plan through our fiscal framework that will improve the health of all Canadians.

HealthOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Before we go to the point of order, I want to say that today was not a great day, but it was a much better day. I want to thank the members who respected others while they were speaking.

HealthOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

You might be setting your standards too low, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order. Earlier we heard the member for Repentigny wrongly label Alberta oil as the dirtiest in the world when we know it is actually Nigeria. I would like to table, please, a report from the Library of Parliament showing that Quebec imported three million barrels of the world's dirtiest oil from Nigeria.

HealthOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

HealthOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

HealthOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On Tuesday, we had a great discussion on Teck Frontier and the oil sands industry writ large in this country. I would like to thank the member for Lakeland for bringing that emergency debate so all members in this House could bring forward their thoughts, and I appreciated having that chance.

During the debate, I had a question for the member for Regina—Lewvan. I asked him about the 38 existing oil sands projects approved, representing 2.7 million barrels of oil, that could start tomorrow and he asked for the report. I have it here and would like to table it for the benefit of all members.

HealthOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

HealthOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Vaudreuil—Soulanges Québec

Liberal

Peter Schiefke LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order today to simply point out that there are rules in this House. One of the main rules is that we have a chance to ask questions, as well as respond to those questions. Unfortunately, today the hon. member for Prince Albert did not follow those rules. During the response of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to a question, he was so loud, I had a hard time hearing her and I am sitting literally two seats behind her. Following the response to his question, he decided to throw attacks at her and continue to launch insults.

Yesterday, I do not know if the hon. member wore a pink shirt for Anti-Bullying Day. If he did, it was not worth the picture that was printed on it and I am asking him to apologize to this House.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, I do apologize to the House. I did act irrationally, but I have to justify it in such a fashion that there are farmers right now looking at the weather, looking at the road bans, looking at their financial situations and they need action. The government does not seem to act unless it is a crisis—

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I am going to accept the hon. member's apology.

I want to remind hon. members that when someone rises on a point of order about respect in the room and then there is shouting afterward, there is an irony there. I wonder if I am missing something.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple and short question for the government House leader. I would ask him to tell this House what the business is for the remainder of this week. If he knows what the priorities will be when we return after our constituency week, that would also be appreciated.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Honoré-Mercier Québec

Liberal

Pablo Rodriguez LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue debate at second reading of Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying.

Tomorrow will be an allotted day for the Conservative Party.

The House will then adjourn for one week, during which we will be in our ridings doing incredibly important work with our constituents.

Upon our return, we will deal with Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico, and Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code on medical assistance in dying.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Pontiac Québec

Liberal

William Amos LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Innovation

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to speak to the report of the Council of Canadian Academies on the provision of medical assistance in dying to those struggling with mental illness.

The complexity of the issue is reflected in the fact that the members of the Council of Canadian Academies working group had vastly different opinions on the subject. On the one hand, the reports note that symptoms of mental disorder can impair cognitive abilities, making it more difficult to understand or appreciate the nature and consequences of treatment decisions.

The word “incurable” is not generally used by clinicians in the context of mental disorders, which makes it difficult to assess the condition of a person with “irremediable” health problems under the current legislation.

On the other hand, the report points out that the autonomy rights of an individual with a mental illness must be respected. The report cites the experiences of Belgium and the Netherlands, which permit assisted dying for psychiatric conditions, with additional safeguards. However, the report also acknowledges that assisted dying for persons with mental illnesses in these jurisdictions remains controversial, and the public debate is ongoing. Ultimately, the working group could not reach consensus on ways to address complexities and mitigate risks associated with mental illness and medical assistance in dying.

On the topic of advance requests, the Council of Canadian Academies report on advance requests also documents considerable evidence and provided many instructive findings on an issue of great interest and concern to many Canadians. Particularly in our riding, this was an issue I heard a lot about.

An advance request is a request for assisted dying made well in advance and in anticipation of the time when the person making the request may face suffering and other circumstances that may make them eligible for medical assistance in death. An advance request would set out conditions under which an individual requests MAID to be provided at a future date. Advance requests are premised on the likelihood that when people's health circumstances deteriorate to the point where they would want an assisted death, they would no longer have the capacity to affirm their decision immediately before receiving medical assistance in dying. In other words, that critical requirement of giving final consent would not be possible.

Many people express the desire to make an advance request so they have the comfort of knowing they will be able to avoid a lengthy period of grievous suffering for themselves and for their families. This is in the event they succumb to an illness that could leave them severely impaired and lacking cognitive capacity for a lengthy time period.

The CCA report helped unpack advance requests, in a way that really was helpful, by outlining several scenarios of increasing complexity. The first scenario involves an individual at the end of life who has been assessed as eligible for medical assistance in dying, but fears losing capacity while waiting to receive it. This is the situation experienced by Audrey Parker from Nova Scotia who chose to receive MAID earlier than she had wanted in fear of losing her eligibility status.

The second scenario involves an individual who has been diagnosed with a serious condition, but does not yet qualify for medical assistance in dying.

The third scenario involves an individual who wants to plan for various future outcomes, prior to any diagnosis.

The report indicated that when the request is farther in advance of the procedure, it becomes more challenging for health care providers to be certain that the request still reflects the wishes of the individual. The report found that the first scenario poses the least risk and is relatively straightforward. Canadians expressed a great deal of support for this scenario in the federal consultations and it is also widely supported by experts and practitioners.

Our proposed amendments in Bill C-7 would permit this type of advance request. This means that an individual who has a reasonably foreseeable natural death, and who is assessed and approved for medical assistance in dying, can wait for their chosen date without worrying about losing decision-making capacity. If the person does lose capacity prior to that date, they would still receive medical assistance in dying on the requested date or earlier, as expressed in their advance wish. It also means that individuals no longer need to reduce required pain medications and endure additional suffering in order to maintain their capacity to consent right before the procedure.

However, the other two scenarios, where significantly more time passes between preparing a request and medical assistance in dying provision, are far more complex and challenging.

I want to point out that we have definitely made movement on that first aspect. It is in those other two aspects where there is significantly more debate, and those need to be taken care of by Parliament in the coming months, which is exactly what this bill provides for.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting that this member actually makes very explicit the slippery slope that so many people are concerned about, because when C-14 first came out, the ministers at the time defended it as representing a finely tuned balance between access and safeguards.

Now, we have legislation that removes safeguards and this member talks about the possibility of new legislation very soon after the statutory review in June that would remove further safeguards. We have seen dramatic increases in the rate of people accessing euthanasia in each of the last four years.

I wonder if people should be reasonably skeptical when the government talks about the balance that it is trying to establish, when every single time this comes up, they want to remove more and more of the safeguards.

I will pick on one safeguard, the idea that there could be a 10-day waiting period, one that can be waived in certain circumstances, but by and large is in place. That seems to be eminently reasonable. There is also the idea that there should be two witnesses who observe the consent. These basic safeguards, the 10-day waiting period that could be waived and two witnesses, are very reasonable things that the government wants to do away with.

It makes me wonder, in the next iteration of this legislation, what safeguards at that point will the government remove. How many safeguards do they intend to take away? What is wrong with having some checks and balances in place protecting vulnerable people?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC

Mr. Speaker, this country has been going through an ongoing discussion on this issue. This precedes the Carter decision. It goes even beyond the Rodriguez case. We have been having this conversation about what are the appropriate ways to secure the life, liberty and security of the person while also respecting his or her dignity. This is not a question of removing safeguards. This is a question of ensuring that Canada has a properly progressing discussion about issues that are very difficult.

Granted, the bill brought in 2016 was brought with significant time pressures and there was a significant and robust discussion, but we left room for further discussion. That was the whole purpose of the reports that were prepared by the Council of Canadian Academies, so that further reflection could be provided. That was done, and those reports have really helped this legislation bring forward better proposals.