Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2021

Official Languages

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, linguistic duality is a key part of what makes Canada great, and nowhere is this more apparent than in Montreal's anglophone community. We are proud to live in Canada's only French province, proud of our English heritage and proud to speak both official languages.

Can the Minister of Official Languages tell us how the language reform document tabled in the House last week protects the rights of anglophone Quebeckers, as well as the official language minority communities across the country?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, the member has a great riding.

Of course our government will always stand side by side with the English-speaking community in Quebec and with francophones outside of Quebec to make sure they are able to defend their constitutional rights. That is exactly what we can do by supporting both official languages, and protecting French, but never to the detriment of English-speaking Quebeckers.

We will make sure to protect English-speaking Quebeckers' institutions, while protecting the court challenges program. Finally, we will be there—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Victoria.

The Environment

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Volkswagen's diesel engine scandal is one of the worst environmental crimes committed in Canada, but the Liberal government's response was completely inadequate. No one from the government is able to answer questions about why they waited years before laying charges, or why the penalties were so small in comparison to what Volkswagen paid in the U.S.

Now, after lying about illegal levels of emissions and endangering the health of Canadians, the government is letting Volkswagen collect the wage subsidy while the company pays out billions of dollars to its wealthy shareholders.

Why is the government once again looking out for big corporations instead of Canadians and the environment?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, this investigation, related prosecution matters and the judge's approval of Volkswagen AG's penalty are independent of the minister's office, and the hon. member knows that very well.

The conclusion of this investigation has resulted in the company paying an unprecedented fine in Canada. It is 26 times greater than the highest federal environmental fine ever imposed in Canada, and monies from the fine will go toward projects that protect the environment. Once again, my hon. colleague knows this very well.

We are proud of the results because they show we will take action and there are penalties in place for those who break the rules.

Aerospace Industry

[Yasmin Ratansi, Independent, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks back, I met with representatives from De Havilland, one of the most innovative Canadian companies in the aerospace industry. The industry employs 20,000 people, including some from my riding of Don Valley East, and contributes $25 billion to the Canadian GDP. COVID-19 has had a negative impact on this industry, and hence, employment within it.

Can the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry advise the House what assistance he can provide so this industry stays vibrant?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her work on behalf of the aerospace industry and its workers.

We are all saddened for the workers and families who have been impacted by the decision to halt production of the Dash 8 aircraft. Since being named Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, I have been in constant contact with key stakeholders in the aerospace sector to make sure we chart a path forward together. We know how important the aviation and aerospace industries are to the Canadian economy, and we will continue to invest in the sector and its workers.

Statements by Members

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

It may have been a simple oversight, but I had planned to deliver an S. O. 31 as the 16th speaker on the roster today. I am hoping that I can still move forward with delivering that statement.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent to allow the member to give his S. O. 31.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed to the request will please say nay.

Hearing no dissenting voice, it is agreed.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, from Montreal to mission control, I rise today on behalf of the House of Commons to congratulate Quebec's own Dr. Farah Alibay, who recently helped the Perseverance rover land safely on Mars.

Her academic achievements at the University of Cambridge and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and her personal perseverance led her to play a key role in this mission, which could confirm whether there is life on another planet, knowledge that could change the way we see our place in our galaxy.

In addition to her interplanetary accolades, perhaps her greatest contribution is her commitment to paying forward the mentorship she herself received by giving her time as a Big Sister and mentoring women interns herself. Dr. Alibay is an inspiration to so many, including my four-year-old daughter Ellie, whose eyes opened wide as I told her that Dr. Alibay was controlling the rover on Mars. We are proud, Canada is proud and we wish her nothing but the best in carrying out the important mission.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I have no desire to object to the previous member sharing his S. O. 31, but I do want to observe that the right to speak is not dependent on any list; it is on the call of the Speaker. I do not want the impression to be delivered that the right to speak was dependent on a list.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I appreciate that, and it is true. It will go as a point of courtesy. Because we had gone over S. O. 31s, I just thought it would be courteous to consult with the chamber to make sure that we had consent, but I thank the member for bringing that up.

Members' Participation in Oral Questions—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 16 by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands concerning the participation of independent members and unrecognized parties during question period.

During her intervention, the member reminded the House that one of the essential rights of members is to participate in the proceedings of the House and to ask questions in order to hold the government to account. She feels that this right is being violated because independent members and unrecognized parties are not able to participate in question period on Wednesdays, the day when the Prime Minister normally answers all questions. She said that she had had a number of unproductive discussions on this matter with the leaders in the House of the recognized parties.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands asked the Chair to confirm that all members of all parties, recognized or not, have the right to ask questions during question period on Wednesdays. She thus asked the Speaker to order the recognized parties to meet and hold discussions with the independent members and unrecognized parties to find a solution that works for everyone.

Before continuing, I would like to take a moment to remind the members of the difference between questions of privilege and points of order.

As Joseph Maingot puts it in the second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, at page 223:

...where the answer to the alleged “question of privilege” is contained in the rules or the practice of the House, it would unlikely involve a breach of the privileges of Members. ...A breach of the Standing Orders or a failure to follow an established practice would invoke a “point of order” rather than a “question of privilege.” Allegations of fact amounting to allegations that proper procedures were not followed are by their very nature matters of order, and even if valid will not receive priority in debate as would a prima facie case of privilege.

With all respect, the matter raised by the member is not a question of privilege of the House; it is, rather, a point of order.

This is not the first time that the Chair has been called on to rule on the appropriate role of independent members and unrecognized parties during question period. My immediate predecessor, in particular, gave a major ruling on this matter on October 23, 2018. He pointed out that the participation of independent members during question period is based on the delicate balance of a number of factors.

Independent members and unrecognized parties are in a peculiar position, because Canadian parliamentary practices were, to a large extent, developed with recognized parties in mind. That does not, however, relieve the Chair of all responsibilities for independent members and unrecognized parties. The Chair has a definite role to play in protecting their rights. While exercising this significant role, it is important that the Chair find a balance between the rights and interests of the majority and of those of the minority. In doing so, the Chair must try to be equitable and fair, without tipping the balance too far on one side or the other.

Central to the question raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is the issue of the allocation of oral questions to allow independent members and unrecognized parties to put questions directly to the Prime Minister on Wednesdays.

The third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice has this to say on the matter, at pages 515 and 516, and I quote:

In reality, questions are directed to the Ministry as a whole, although customarily they are addressed to specific Ministers. It is the prerogative of the government to designate the Minister who will respond to a given question, and the Speaker has no authority to compel a particular Minister to respond. The Prime Minister...may respond to any or all questions posed during Question Period. ...Members may not insist on receiving an answer nor may a Member insist that a specific Minister respond to his or her question.

At present, it is the Prime Minister's practice to respond to all oral questions on Wednesday. It should be noted that there is nothing in the Standing Orders to oblige him to do so, just as there is nothing that prevents him from answering all questions on the other days of the week. Conversely, the Prime Minister can decide not to respond to all the questions put to him, even on Wednesday, if he feels, for example, that another minister is better able to answer the question. Thus, even if independent members were given a question on Wednesdays, the Prime Minister would be under no greater obligation to answer it, and the Chair could not compel him to do so. The relevant principle here is the principle of ministerial responsibility: Ministers assume collective responsibility for the policies and decisions of the government.

On a more practical level, the Chair must also deal with a time constraint with respect to the duration of question period as provided for in Standing Order 30(5). While it happens frequently that question period runs long, the fact remains that, as Speaker, I must enforce the rules that the House has established for itself and manage proceedings in the House as best as possible in order to attenuate as much as possible the impacts of the rest of the day's deliberations.

The distribution of slots for debate, statements and questions has been determined in recent years by negotiations among the recognized political parties at the beginning of each Parliament. In light of this practice, the Speaker's role is to implement the negotiated agreement in a way that respects members' rights. The Chair cannot unilaterally change such practices. It can simply continue to reconcile the three fundamental elements, which are established parliamentary practices, the time provided for by the Standing Orders and the opportunity for independent members and unrecognized parties to address questions to the government.

What is more, in addition to question period, independent members and unrecognized parties have a number of opportunities to participate in the proceedings of the House and its committees so as to hold the government to account and influence the administrative policies put forward. As legislators, our rules allow them to participate in the review of the government's legislative agenda by proposing amendments at both the committee and report stages. They participate in the debate, less frequently it is true, but primarily during the questions and comments after the speeches at each stage of the legislative process. They can also put questions on the Order Paper and ask for a response from the government or take part in the adjournment debate.

Thus, in light of the information presented and the precedents in this matter, I cannot conclude that the point of order is substantiated nor see in it any breach of parliamentary privilege, inasmuch as the question, as I already stated, has more to do with our practices and customs than with privileges. The Chair is not convinced that the member, personally, or the other independent members, collectively, are hampered in their parliamentary function or treated inequitably by the current arrangement governing question period.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will perhaps want to look into the way that question period is conducted, including the participation of independent members. I encourage the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to channel her efforts in this direction. I remain open to revisiting this issue if circumstances justify it.

I thank members for their attention.

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I am not disappointed with your ruling, but of course I accept it. However, there was another point that I did not raise in the argument that I put forward to you. Since the time the rules were adopted, to which you just referred, the number of members of Parliament in the category of independents and non-recognized parties has doubled. As you said you are open to the matter, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you review, as a point of order, the notion that members in unrecognized parties and independent members have far fewer opportunities to put forward their questions. I submit to you that this does represent an impairment in our ability to fully represent our constituents.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I will take that under advisement.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Contents of Bill C-22

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am rising to speak to the alleged premature disclosure of the content of Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

My colleague, the hon. member for Fundy Royal, rose in the House on February 19 to allege that the content of the bill was divulged by the government in a CBC news story during the notice period. In his intervention he cited a Speaker's ruling on March 10, 2020, respecting the premature disclosure of Bill C-7 and Bill C-14, both dealing with medical assistance in dying. In those cases, the government acknowledged that some content was disclosed during the notice period, and as a result, the Speaker found there was a prima facie breach of privilege.

The case before the House on Bill C-22 is indeed different. I have discussed this matter with the office of the Minister of Justice, and they have confirmed to me that a CBC reporter did inquire about the content of the bill while it was on notice. The office explained to the reporter that since the bill was on notice, they could not comment on the content of the bill until it had been properly introduced in the House.

The government, in 2015, promised to make public mandate letters for the ministers, a significant departure from the secrecy around those key policy commitment documents from previous governments. As a result of the publication of the mandate letters, reporters are able to use the language from these letters to try to telegraph what the government bill on notice may contain.

I take umbrage with the member for Fundy Royal's assertion: “We are being asked once again to deal with the contemptuous actions of the Minister of Justice and his justice team.” The member should ensure that he has the facts on his side before casting such aspersions on any member of the House. It is neither decorous nor responsible.

Now let me deal with the matter directly.

Bill C-22 has three main policy thrusts: repealing mandatory minimum penalties in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Criminal Code, increasing the availability of conditional sentence orders and evidence-based diversion from simple possession offences. The article the member refers to and relies on for his argument was not correct in its description of all three elements and therefore resides in the realm of speculation.

When we get into the details of the article in comparison with the bill, the story gets the content wrong. Let me walk members through the content of the article.

On drugs, the article is rife with speculation. The 2019 mandate letter for the Minister of Justice states, “Make drug treatment courts the default option for first-time non-violent offenders charged exclusively with simple possession to help drug users get quick access to treatment and to prevent more serious crimes.” The reporting on this item seems to be speculative based on the title of the bill. Moreover, the bill does not contain measures dealing with drug treatment courts.

I will note for the benefit of members that the evidence-based diversion measures in the bill are entirely distinct from drug treatment courts. Drug treatment courts require non-violent offenders to plead guilty, and judge-mandated supervision has no relation to what is proposed in the bill. In fact, the bill seeks to avoid the laying of charges in the prosecution of simple possession cases in the first place, if appropriate.

The bill also proposes a principled approach for police and prosecutors to consider before laying or pursuing a charge of the offence of simple drug possession. This includes the possibility of referral to various treatment programs or social supports and/or empowering police and prosecutors to provide a warning or to take no action with respect to the potential offender instead.

On mandatory minimum penalties, the article states that the government will revisit the mandatory minimum penalties for drug-related offences. In fact, upon inspection of the bill, the government is proposing to remove all mandatory minimums related to the drug offences, as well as removing mandatory minimums for 14 other offences in the Criminal Code.

There is no mention in the article of conditional sentence orders, which are a key policy element of the bill. In addition, there is nothing in the bill that provides for reforms concerning restorative justice specifically. The article infers that the bill contains elements relating to restorative justice, based on the mandate letter commitment, previous public statements and commitments made in regard to the fall economic statement.

One can only assume two outcomes here based on the fact that the article did not accurately describe the contents of the bill. First, the reporter spoke to a government source who was not familiar with the content of the bill. The second outcome, which is perhaps more likely, is that the government did not publicly comment on the bill during the notice period and, as a result, the reporter had no other recourse but to speculate on the content of the bill based on previous policy statements.

I will turn now very quickly to the relevant precedents on the disclosure of the content of a bill during the notice period. In instances where government has acknowledged that an official of the government prematurely disclosed the content of a bill during the notice period, Speakers have found a prima facie case of breach of privilege. However, when the government has not disclosed the content of a bill during the notice period, Speakers have been reluctant to find a prima facie case of breach of privilege. On June 8, 2017, the Speaker referred to the distinction as follows:

When ruling on a similar question of privilege on April 19, 2016, I found a prima facie case of privilege in relation to the premature disclosure of Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying). In that particular case, the government had acknowledged the premature disclosure of the bill while assuring the House that this had not been authorized and would not happen again. In other words, the facts were undisputed.

That is not the case with the situation before us. The parliamentary secretary has assured the House that the government did not share the bill before it was introduced in the House but conceded that extensive consultations were conducted. Nor is the Chair confronted with a situation where a formal briefing session was provided to the media but not to members.

Finally, it is a long established practice to take members at their word, and the Chair, in view of this particular set of circumstances, is prepared to accept the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

In conclusion, I submit that if the content of the bill was prematurely divulged during the notice period, it did not emanate from the government side.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I thank the hon. member and I will take his comments under advisement.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), and of the amendment.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

My apologies. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague did have a fantastic speech just prior to question period and I believe that her time wrapped up with the beginning of question period.

We once again find ourselves debating one of those issues that should cause each and every member of Parliament to take pause. These are literally issues of life and death. We are debating medical assistance in dying. I have had the opportunity to enter into discussion now a number of times on the subject and I am pleased to be able to do so again on the amendment that my colleague made to the report back from the Senate, some of whose changes I would suggest are troubling ones from the deliberations that took place in that other place.

Before jumping into this, I would like to discuss some context, as I do every time I discuss this issue. Early on in the last campaign when I was not even elected, I was door-knocking in a community in my constituency where I happened to knock on the door of a physician. This was pre-COVID times. It is hard to believe that we are now a year into the pandemic. The sort of campaigning we did in 2019 seems such a long time ago.

Nobody actually answered the door. I was walking back down the driveway to the front yard and somebody called out from the backyard. I went to the fence and ended up having a lengthy conversation. What I find very interesting is that this particular physician articulated some of the concerns regarding this and other issues that he faces in the medical profession as a doctor in a small, rural community in Alberta. He outlined some of the concerns regarding medical assistance in dying.

I will not deny that I have positions on this issue that I have developed over my time in both politics, studying this and on many other issues, but what was very interesting as I reflect back on these comments is this physician outlined a whole series of concerns. In politics, they say one should not spend more than a couple minutes at the door, but I wanted to give this gentleman the time to outline his concerns. He outlined to me, ironically, some of the concerns that we are debating today with a suggestion about the slippery-slope argument.

I followed closely some of the debates that took place in the last Parliament and issues around the initial court cases that led us to Parliament being tasked with creating a framework in the last Parliament, and then some of the continuation of that. What I find very interesting is how accurately this doctor predicted some of the significant challenges that we are now facing. This is me paraphrasing this conversation from a number of years ago now, but he outlined that very activist, vocal causes are skewing the national conversation on ensuring that those who need protection most in our society are protected.

Here we are today. I had the honour of being elected and have a seat in this amazing chamber, the place of democratic discourse in our country. Here we are and I look at both the contents of what came back from the Senate and the various discussions had regarding Bill C-7 over the last number of months. It is very troubling that this gentleman was almost prophetic in the way he talked about these issues and some of the groups of people who are being affected in this framework that could lead to direct discrimination and how some of their voices are being ignored.

I find it very interesting. In fact, I had the opportunity earlier today to ask the Minister of Justice, after his opening remarks, a question about consultations. I was troubled by his response, although it was passionate, and I grant him that passion. We are all passionate about various issues, especially ones of such a personal nature as this. The minister went on to talk about how we need to address the suffering, but failed to truly answer why the government did not go down the path of appealing this decision to a higher court, which would have allowed for greater certainty on the type of legislation that would be enacted and ensure that it could be done in a way that we do not find ourselves here again in maybe a number of years, or sooner than that.

It is troubling, again in the words of the physician back in that driveway during my first campaign running for office about a year and a half ago, that the very vocal activist causes are getting a disproportionate amount of airtime. I bring that up because we have seen an evolution in this debate from what was discussed in the last Parliament and the very valid concerns that some of my current and former colleagues had, some of whom have retired, or whom I count as friends, like the member whose board I sat on while going to university, the late Mark Warawa, all of whom have defended life with passion in this place. However, where we find ourselves today is the definition of a slippery slope, and that is incredibly concerning to me.

It is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that we take seriously our obligation to debate, discuss and try to come up with the best outcome possible to serve, protect and ensure that Canadians are not placed in a position they should not be in. This issue would probably be in the top five and maybe even the top three of the issues I hear about. I hear feedback on every side of this debate, which is good. That is called democracy. It is called discourse and is exactly what the point is. It is why we are organized into parties and represent different regions of the country.

Each of us brings a different level of expertise, and I joke often that the only job requirement for a member of Parliament is that one happens to get more votes than the other guy. It is incredible the strength of our democracy is in the diversity that results from that. It is that diversity of opinions that forces us to take pause and debate these very important issues.

I will go back now to the consultations that the minister undertook on this issue back in the early sitting weeks of Parliament before prorogation. I spoke to many constituents, was sent emails and cc'd on others, and I found it very troubling to hear from a number of them that the so-called consultations were being conducted in a way that would confirm the objective of those who wrote the consultation piece. That is the antithesis of what we try to do here. In some cases, individuals with passionate perspectives on this subject felt they could not even participate in the consultations because of the way they were formatted. I find that was a troubling start to this process.

We have seen saw the Minister of Justice's comments, in addition to those of others in the government, about this as we have been going through this process. It was debated after prorogation, which of course slowed everything down. We lost about 35 sitting days. Whenever the government says that the Conservatives ought to hurry up because they are delaying the process, I will point out that 35 legislative days were lost in this place for it to do its job.

It is not just the two days that the members opposite like to suggest; it is 35 sitting days. The context for that deflates any argument that the other side would suggest on this, that we should simply rush something like this. There was the ability to appeal this to a higher court. When discussing this matter with one of my colleagues, it seems like the Liberals were not even aware that it could have been appealed to a higher court, among some other notable instances where there is a troubling lack of information.

An evolution has taken place from when the minister first stood up. When questions first started being asked last fall, he said that they had found the consensus, making clear definitive declarations, saying that they had consulted, that they had listened to the consultations and they did their job. That was being said by the government and the minister.

As questions were asked and as committee discussions went on both in the House of Commons and the committee, and then the pre-study and debate of the bill in the other place, we saw the government language change quite a bit. There was acknowledgement of a diversity of opinions. A lot of the diversity of these opinions was not respected in the beginning until there was a groundswell of concern. My office received hundreds, maybe thousands, of pieces of correspondence showing concern on this issue.

There are very few issues that garner this type correspondence, but this was one of those issues. In fact, people would call and tell me that they did not vote for me, but that they were concerned with the direction the government was taking. I heard from indigenous people. They told me that this went against the very fundamentals of their world view. Disability advocates are deeply concerned about an ableist-type mentality within the country, which could have very troubling consequences. We have the utmost responsibility to take these things very seriously.

This debate is very personally for a lot of us. I know there has been some emotion expressed in that regard, and this is part of an issue that is as important as this. As Conservatives, we have a free vote on this issue and we see a diversity of opinions within our caucus. That is great; that is democracy.

I do not know exactly where other parties stand on this, but certainly the autonomy of the member of Parliament is a constitutionally enabled thing here, which is often forgotten, certainly by our media and in the education of our parliamentary system. I emphasis for all those listening and on Zoom that the autonomy of the member of Parliament is one of the keystones of our democratic system. It needs to be respected. However, that is a bit of a segue.

This is an incredibly personal issue. Everybody has had an experience. I too have sat with loved ones during some of their last breaths. I have seen the consequences and I understand why this can be so emotional.

When I look at this in terms of the context of what we are debating today and the amendment that has been proposed in the government's response to the Senate amendments, important steps are taken to ensure that those among us who are most vulnerable are protected. My colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes spoke to that. It strikes at a good-faith attempt by the Conservatives to try to move the dial on a host of what many have pointed out are problematic aspects of what took place in the other place.

Let me take a brief moment to commend some of my Conservative colleagues in the other place. I have spoken with them about the process and in some cases their great disappointment and utter surprise at what they hoped to accomplish going into those deliberations and what resulted. I do commend the Conservatives who sat around that table. I will note that they have some of the most personal connections to this issue. When hearing those stories, it certainly strikes right at the heart.

We are now tasked with having to come to a place where we develop a framework. The government likely has the support to get the bill passed. We have introduced an amendment to the government's response to try to address some of the challenges that we have heard. This is not about some ideological parade to try to make our points known. This is about trying to address some of the challenges that we have with the bill and specifically the response.

When we introduce an amendment, it is important for debate in this place to acknowledge the ability to improve upon legislation, to address deeply problematic aspects of it, to try in good faith to add a level of protection to the most vulnerable within our society, to ensure that we are not creating a situation where a medical assistance in dying regime ends up pushing people to a decision that there is no coming back from, trying to take some small steps to help move the bill in a direction that at least addresses some of these very serious concerns. For those who are watching, I would refer them to some of my earlier speeches on the matter.

This is what we are attempting to do today. Specifically, I would mention the irony in which we find ourselves. The House unanimously supported a motion for a 988 suicide prevention helpline, which was absolutely the right thing to do. I was proud to support that. However, this is not just an ideological thing, but many have suggested the bill moves medical assistance in dying, assisted suicide, euthanasia, however it is defined, in a direction that many, including myself, suggest is very concerning. There is an irony between supporting suicide prevention and a regime that may unintentionally, I certainly hope unintentionally, result in what could be catastrophic for our country.

There is a need for palliative care. I mentioned the late Mark Warawa. He is an example of living his faith. He announced he would not run in the next election. He was going to become a chaplain to help people through the end of their life. He ended up being diagnosed with a very fast moving cancer. He ended up living out the very example of why palliative care is so important.

We find ourselves in the middle of a pandemic where disproportionately those affected are our seniors and those most at risk, yet we are debating something where we need to ensure there are safeguards in place. That the tragic irony is certainly not something I think anyone here would like his or her legacy to be, that while discussing and debating COVID supports in response, that we would also enable something that could be abused and would result in the end of life for vulnerable Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, this has been debated quite extensively. The former prime minister, Stephen Harper, was unable to deal with the issue even though there was a Supreme Court of Canada decision. That ultimately led to a bill being introduced, with debates and standing committees starting at the beginning in 2016. There have literally been thousands of hours of consultation, debates, committees and so forth.

Does the member think it is time to move on?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are doing exactly what all of us were elected to do, which is to debate issues thoroughly. I hope the member listened to the beginning of my speech, because I emphasized this. I made an inference to one of the questions he asked me the last time I debated this subject.

When it comes to issues of life and death, where there is a diversity of opinions and no clear consensus like the minister at times has suggested, and the fact that there are those of us within this chamber attempting to, in good faith, address some of the challenges we hear about from Canadians, from indigenous peoples and from disability groups, that deserves debate in this place. We will continue to ensure those voices are heard within this place.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, among the amendments introduced by the Senate is the idea of a joint committee made up of 11 people from the House of Commons and five people from the Senate.

The Conservative member raised a number of points for consideration regarding the importance of working collaboratively. What does he think of such a committee? Would that not be an opportunity to hear different points of view and improve care for the benefit of people who are suffering and at the end of life?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have outlined the problematic precursor to some of the areas of debate and the situation in which we find ourselves today. There is a need for this to be debated, studied and wholesomely discussed. Consultation that does not direct a specific outcome is key. All these things are vitally important.

It is unfortunate and a bit ironic that there would be a suggestion for a new committee to address what is a very problematic aspect of this bill with respect to mental illness and a desire to see that addressed in the future when the place we are at today has quite problematic origins. Debate needs to take place and we need to continue to do that in this place.