Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2021

Criminal Code

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, we certainly are dealing with a very sensitive subject matter with today. This Parliament and the last Parliament both have had quite a long journey in dealing with the substance and subject matter of medical assistance in dying.

I know that I along with many of my colleagues in all parties have been recipients of a huge amount of correspondence on this subject matter, both from organized groups across the country and our very own constituents. It can be hard as a member of Parliament to find one's own way through all of that, because the feedback we receive and the strong passions are evident on both sides of the argument. I was a witness to that with Bill C-14 and, of course, it has been replayed for Bill C-7.

There have been difficult conversations with constituents. I have constituents who feel the government legislation does not go far enough. They felt that way for Bill C-14 and some feel the same way for Bill C-7. Others feel it goes too far and establishes dangerous precedents. It can be tough, but in those conversations I have had with my constituents, I have always tried to guide myself with the difference between sympathy and empathy. With sympathy, we can feel sorry for one's situation in life, but we are still looking at another person's situation with our own biases and world view, whereas true empathy, which is very much required when we are dealing with medical assistance in dying, is to try to put ourselves into that other people's shoes, to try to see the world from their point of view, to see exactly why these issues and matters are so important to them.

I also try to use section 7 of the charter to guide myself, the fact that it is explicitly written that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Essentially it means that people have a right to control their own bodily integrity. It is engaged whenever the state tries to interfere with personal autonomy.

This is really the crux of the matter. It is personal autonomy, a person's decision on how he or she is going to meet the end of his or her life. For those of us who are blessed to lead healthy lives, who are not intolerably suffering from a grievous and irremediable medical condition, we really cannot know what other people's lives are like. We do not know what it is like for those people to not have autonomy over their own bodily functions or their bodily integrity, so to speak.

In today's debate, one thing should be very clear. The House of Commons has already spoken to Bill C-7. We have already decided on what we want to do as the people's elected representatives. Of course, the Senate has reviewed the final third reading version of the bill that we sent to it and the Senate sent it back to us with some of its recommendations. This is not the time or the place to go over old arguments that were already dealt with by the House. This is really a time for us to focus exclusively on what the Senate has brought to us.

It is important to note that nothing in Bill C-7 is going to change the very high standards set out in the original Bill C-14. To receive medical assistance in dying, patients need to have a condition that is incurable. They must be in a state of irreversible decline and they must be facing intolerable suffering. The door is not being opened wide, as some have suggested. Those basic parameters are still in place.

When we are dealing with this subject matter, it is important to note that most Canadians know someone who has been affected by intolerable suffering at the end of his or her life. Generally, my caucus has been supportive of this bill because it does respond to the need to reduce that unnecessary suffering at the end of life. As I alluded to, section 7 of the charter helps to preserve the autonomy of decision-making for individuals.

I made reference to the fact that most Canadians know someone who has been affected by a disease and intolerable suffering. I have had that personal experience as well with a close family member, and that happened at a time before we had medical assistance in dying. It was a long-drawn-out battle with cancer. It can be hard on the family members too, because they have to watch a beloved family member suffer, in some cases for several months, before the end mercifully does come.

It is a very weighty subject matter, and I want to approach today's debate with that firmly in mind.

I was first elected in 2015, so I was a member of the 42nd Parliament. I was there for all the Bill C-14 debate, which was forced upon Parliament at the time by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Carter. We, as New Democrats, ultimately did not support Bill C-14, because we felt the bill at the time was too restrictive. I remember referring to the fact that the courts would force this bill back before Parliament, and that happened with the Quebec superior court.

I do not want to dwell too long on this history, but one thing that is very important to mention, in the context of today's debate, is that Bill C-14 had a provision in clause 10, which mandated that a legislative review had to happen at the beginning of the fifth year. I will read it out for my hon. colleagues. Clause 10 reads as follows:

At the start of the fifth year after the day on which this Act receives royal assent, the provisions enacted by this Act are to be referred to the committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing the provisions.

That is very clear language, and the beginning of the fifth year was in June 2020. We are almost at the end of February 2021.

The reason I raise this is that this important legislation review would have dealt with a lot of the questions the House is now considering and debating. It almost feels like we are building parts of the plane as we are flying. Many of these debatable items that are going on with Bill C-7 need a very careful study. They need to have the timeline afforded to them so we can hear from Canadians across the country, from expert witnesses and actually craft a law that responds to those very important bits of feedback.

I also want to take this opportunity to recognize my friend and colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, a neighbouring riding of mine. He has long recognized this legislative requirement of Bill C-14. He has raised it with the Minister of Justice on several occasions.

Due to his frustration at the government's inaction on this front, he introduced Motion No. 51, which would establish a special committee of the House to include a review that would not be limited to but would expand on several issues. It would have looked at requests for medical assistance in dying by mature minors, advanced requests and, most important, requests where mental illness was the sole underlying medical condition. The committee would also be charged with looking at the state of palliative care, the adequacy of safeguards against pressure on the vulnerable and so on. If we had such a committee in place, already looking at these issues, then we may have had some answers to these important questions by this point.

I will move on to what the Senate has sent back to the House. I was reviewing some of the transcripts from the Senate, some from its legal and constitutional affairs committee, but also from its third reading of the bill.

The Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee decided to report back to the main body of the Senate with no amendments to the bill but some observations. The substantive amendments to the bill all came at third reading. For example, there was a proposed change to the wording of subsection 1(2) for mental illness to include a neurocognitive disorder, looking at advanced requests and so on.

Today, we are dealing with the government's response to those amendments. The government has crafted a motion for the House to consider on what amendments it agrees with, those it does not and those it wants to amend. The Senate disagreed with the expanded definition for the exclusion of mental illness. The government's motion disagrees with the advanced request part of it.

However, as a quick summary, the government motion agrees to the sunset clause for the mental health exclusion. Instead of 18 months, the government has proposed it be expanded to two years after royal assent. Essentially this legislation, once it becomes a statute of Canada, if passed in this manner, will have a ticking clock of two years for a committee to come up with the appropriate safeguards in place.

The government's motion in response to the Senate also mandates that the minister is to set up a committee of experts to work on mental health protocols. It requires a voluntary collection of data based on indigenous identity, race and disability. It sets up a joint committee to do the legislative review, starting 30 days after royal assent.

The most substantive part of the government's motion that really stands out to me is the fact the government is agreeing to the sunset clause on the mental health exclusion. The reason it stands out for me is because when Bill C-7 was originally proposed to the House, the government's own charter statement made some very strong references to why mental health, as an underlying condition, was to be excluded. For the government to backtrack on that and agree to a sunset clause stands out to me.

I acknowledge that we will have two years, but with such a substantive change to the law. it would make sense to me as a legislator to have a specific committee set up to look at all the things we need to look at to make this bill appropriate and proper so it fits will all the important safeguards we need to have in place. I am a bit wary of having that timeline put on the House and forcing us to do these things.

My Conservative colleague before me has now proposed an amendment to the government's motion. Basically, the Conservatives are proposing to get rid of the sunset clause. That is the most substantive thing. At first glance, that seems reasonable, but because I have only really had about 10 minutes to adequately review what the Conservatives have proposed, I would like more time to refer back to that in later days.

I mentioned the charter statement the government initially brought out for Bill C-7. I would like to read a highlighted section of that charter statement where it reasons why it wants to exclude the mental health provisions in the bill. It says, “evidence suggests that screening for decision-making capacity is particularly difficult, and subject to a high degree of error.” It further says, “mental illness is generally less predictable than physical illness.” It also highlights some concerns from other countries that permitted medical assistance in dying for mental illness, namely Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg.

I want to make it clear that I am not necessarily of the opinion that mental health should be excluded, full stop. What I am saying and what I am arguing is that we need to have an appropriate review of all of this incredibly weighty subject matter before we dive into actually changing the legislation.

This is backed up by the work that was done in the House of Commons' very own Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The justice committee heard that the protocols and safeguards for medical assistance in dying for those with mental illness do not exist and that it would take a significant amount of time to develop them from a clinical perspective. The fact is that if the committee's work on mental health is not complete within two years, that clause will be sunset. I have a real problem with us putting that part up front before we do the hard work at committee.

If I were to summarize my speech, the real issue I have is that I do not believe we should have a substantive expansion of what Bill C-7 purported to do when the bill was passed by the House. I do not think we should have any expansion to it before we have had those reviews in place.

I realize that in some cases, the Senate does like to provide feedback to the House, and there have been several instances of amendments being proposed by the Senate. The real issue I have, the elephant in the room, is that the Senate is still an unelected and unaccountable body.

As members of Parliament, we have to face our constituents. We are accountable to the people who elected us. Whenever the next election comes, the people of my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford are going to judge me on how well I did my job. It is the same for every single member of Parliament who sits in the House of Commons. We have to be accountable for the things we say in the House and how we vote. Senators do not have to do that. I know there are a lot of honourable people who serve in that institution, but they are free from that accountability mechanism. The real problem I have is that I firmly believe the House must always be the final arbiter in the decisions that are made, because the people of Canada elected us to make the laws on their behalf.

In response to the many concerns I have heard raised, both in the House and in correspondence from the disability community, I would like to leave my colleagues with some thoughts. If we are rightly concerned about how persons with disabilities are currently living in Canada and what their quality of life is like, rather than focusing so much on Bill C-7 and medical assistance in dying, why do we not take this opportunity to start enacting reforms and enacting policies to make their lives better? If we look at the income supports that are out there for persons with disabilities and the amount of money they get to scrape by every month, we see a shameful record on our country, and it is something that we need to fix.

We have already acknowledged through the pandemic and through COVID-19 response measures that individuals should be receiving $2,000 a month to get by, but we do not afford that to persons with disabilities. Even when the House had an opportunity to get financial aid to that group of people in Canada, it took us over six months to do so. That is a shameful record, and it is something that the House really needs to concentrate on if we are going to adequately and meaningfully address that issue.

I appreciate having had this opportunity to speak to Bill C-7 and I welcome any questions and comments that my colleagues may have.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quick comments.

We recognize that there have been literally hundreds of hours of debate and discussion on this issue since 2016. We are once again making some changes in response, in good part, to appeal courts, whether the Supreme Court of Canada or Quebec's supreme court. The member, I believe, is not too far off. Is it time that we get this thing through the House of Commons and maybe even reflect on the role that the Parliament of Canada can play in regard to issues like long-term health care standards and mental illnesses?

Could the member expand upon what he believes our role should be?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the parliamentary secretary's comment about the many hours of debate on both Bill C-14 and Bill C-7 and I am also sensitive to the court deadlines.

That said, it was the government's choice to bring forward a motion that is going to, in my view, substantially alter Bill C-7 with the sunset clause on mental health. By that very action, the government is probably going to provoke much more debate in the House because, as the parliamentary secretary will know, the House already took time to pass a version of the bill. The very fact that the government chose to bring in a sunset clause is going to provoke a lot more debate. That is beyond my control.

The other thing I would note is that I wish the government had been a bit more respectful and had introduced this bill for debate tomorrow so that individual caucuses could have had the opportunity to have a thorough discussion of their concerns around the table.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about people with disabilities or mental illness, both of which can present in many forms and to varying degrees. Some people are fully competent to request medical assistance in dying, and we need to respect their choice.

The member said that we should instead be focusing on current issues that affect these people, but I think the two go hand in hand.

Why is the member hesitant to adopt the amendments proposed today?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the disability community and persons suffering from mental health issues, it is important for us to remember that they are not one solid block of people. There are a variety of opinions and approaches to this subject, both within the disability community and among persons who suffer from mental health challenges. I am very wary when a group says it speaks on behalf of an identifiable group, because we know that opinions on the subject are quite varied.

In terms of how we go forward, I am not ultimately going to be able to decide that. That decision is going to be up to the House, but I would refer my hon. colleague back to the answer I gave to the parliamentary secretary: The government chose to bring in a motion that agrees with a substantive amendment, and I think that in itself is going to provoke much more debate and may even serve to ultimately delay the passage of Bill C-7.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I said goodbye to a dear friend. The pain was becoming too much and the cancer was unbeatable, and she passed through medical assistance in dying. However, we are not talking about those cases anymore. We are talking about a dramatic rewriting of the law.

I hear my Liberal colleagues saying we should just get this bill through and that we have talked about it a lot—this when there are serious concerns from the disability community about making them second-class citizens in this country on this issue, when the unelected and unaccountable Senate has now said we should add people who are depressed and have mental illness.

We have fought so hard to make the government stand up on issues. On the national suicide action plan, it has done nothing. We have talked about mental health supports; it has done nothing. We have talked to the government time and time again about disabled people living in poverty; it put it off for another day. Now the government is telling us it is time to rush legislation. It is creating a second track of humanhood in this country for disabled people who do not have the support or ability to live the lives they fully deserve, and now the Senate is willing to say we should include people who are depressed.

Does my hon. colleague think that maybe we need to draw a line here and say we actually have to discuss these issues because they are fundamental to who we are as a nation, rather than go along with the Liberals and the Senate, who say we should just pass this bill and not talk about it?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first recognize that the member for Timmins—James Bay is such a stand-up MP for his constituents, and I always appreciate his interventions, especially on this subject matter.

He is very right that we are not here to relitigate the main provisions of Bill C-7, but we do have to discuss what is a very substantive amendment to the bill by the unelected and unaccountable Senate, and that essentially is what is provoking debate on whether or not we agree as a House that the mental health exclusion section of this bill needs to be sunsetted.

If Liberals and Conservatives honestly cared so deeply about the plight of persons with disabilities, they would have agreed to the letter sent by the member for Elmwood—Transcona and the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke when they wrote to the minister asking that a monthly amount of $2,200 be awarded to all persons with disabilities to make their lives measurably better.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford speaks of our constituents and their concerns.

A resident of North Saanich within my riding was named Sue Rodriguez, and we know her brave struggle. We know she took it to the Supreme Court of Canada and ultimately had to have medical assistance in dying illegally with former NDP member of Parliament Svend Robinson at her side.

I appreciate what the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has said. I wish we had more time in this place, but the court decision is standing there and the better course is not to have two sets of laws between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

At this point, as it appears from comments that have been made thus far, does the NDP caucus plan to support the government motion in this matter?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I indicated we are in support of the government motion. We have some very real concerns with what the government is doing in supporting that substantive Senate amendment.

I would note that it appears from the comments of my Bloc colleagues that they are going to support the government motion. I can do my math quite clearly and see that the votes add up to a general support of the government's motion. I am cognizant of that fact.

Again, I am looking forward to having a very timely discussion with my caucus colleagues tomorrow, because I know a lot of them have very strong opinions on this matter.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have some concern about the amendments related to mental health. There are very substantive amendments coming out of the Senate. My concern is related to the idea that a mental illness is incurable. In my experience and in listening to the testimony of Dr. Sonu Gaind from the Canadian Psychiatric Association back in 2016, the association is very hesitant to endorse the idea that a mental illness could be incurable. It could certainly be treatment resistant, but not incurable, and the concern was that as soon as we start saying that mental illnesses are incurable, we are going to be plunging people into despair and people will no longer seek treatment.

What is the threat of labelling mental illnesses as incurable with this legislation, and the potential to end people's lives prematurely?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is why I took great pains during the course of my speech to point out that the mandated legislative review, as was spelled out in Bill C-14, has not yet happened, which is why my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke brought in Motion No. 51 to set up a special committee to study the matter.

I really believe, especially with mental illness and the fact that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights said that adequate protocols and safeguards are not yet in place, that we need to have a very substantive review before we change the legislation.

Again, I made reference to building the plane as we are flying it. I really believe we need to hear from a committee before we make recommendations as to how the legislation should proceed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated the opportunity to listen to the interventions from various members. It seems the government has, in some sense, brought some members together, though not entirely on the government's side.

I found myself nodding and clapping along to the comments from the member for Timmins—James Bay, and that is something that has never happened before. Never have I agreed so much with the member for Timmins—James Bay as when when he talked about how this bill would make people with disabilities—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. There is a point of order from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for recognizing me, but he may want to retract the comments about how impressed he is by me, because I know he is going to be impressed by many other things I say as well.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I think that is sort of in the category of debate at this point.

We will carry on with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, miracles never cease. Maybe this is the beginning of a dramatic change in things. Time will tell.

Regardless, the specific comments by the member for Timmins—James Bay that really were kind of “aha” moments for me was when he said that Bill C-7, even as previously written, and certainly with these proposed amendments, would make people living with disabilities in some sense second-class citizens when accessing our health care systems, as we would put them on a different track. He said it would create “a second track of humanhood in this country”, which is something that all of us should be seized with, especially in response to the repeated testimony of many organizations that represent Canadians with disabilities, as well as organizations representing Canadians dealing with mental health challenges.

We are here debating Senate amendments to Bill C-7, and specifically debating an amendment by my colleague that would try to change the government's response to the largest substantive amendment by the Senate that the government is proposing to agree with. I will delve particularly into the issues of that amendment. However, first of all, the government is using all kinds of arguments today, and previously, about how this has been a long time coming, that it has been debated extensively. I want to respond specifically by commenting a little on the journey that brought us here with this legislation, because we have really taken all kinds of twists and turns far from where this conversation on this particular bill started.

Allegedly, the genesis of this conversation was a lower court decision in Quebec that dealt specifically with the issue of reasonable foreseeability, and not the issue we are talking about today. It is a different issue that dealt with the issue of whether somebody should be able to access euthanasia if their death is not reasonably foreseeable. This court said that a person should be able to access euthanasia in that case. The government, contrary to advice from us, decided not to appeal that ruling. Importantly, the government could have proceeded with appealing that ruling and then used the window of time available to consider a different legislative response. However, the government created for itself a sharp timeline through its decision to not repeal that ruling.

Subsequent to that, this justice minister brought forward a piece of legislation that deals with many issues related to euthanasia far beyond the parameters of that court decision. The court decision dealt with reasonable foreseeability. I believe that if the government had proposed a piece of legislation that dealt with, and only with, the question of reasonable foreseeability and left other issues for other pieces of legislation, then that bill would have long passed and we would not be talking about fourth extensions, new court deadlines and so forth.

The reason we are in a situation where the bill has not yet passed is that, effectively, the government created an omnibus bill by tacking onto the issue of dealing with reasonable foreseeability many other, unrelated issues: questions of advance consent, questions of removing existing safeguards, questions around the 10-day reflection period. There were many different issues that had to be discussed as the result of the government's decision to put forward legislation, most of which were completely unrelated to the Truchon decision.

I think that, in a very misleading way, the government tried to create this artificial timeline link to the Truchon decision for all sorts of issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the Truchon decision, and there is very little basis for debating that reality. The government could have focused its response to the Truchon decision on the issues raised by that decision, and likely would have been able to justify a more aggressive timeline with respect to the bill, because there would not have been so many issues that needed to be discussed.

The government put all of those additional issues into Bill C-7 while failing to move forward with a mandated legislative review. The previous bill, Bill C-14, had mandated that there would be a legislative review. The government has not moved forward on that at all, and instead packed all of these other issues into Bill C-7. Then we had debate in the House, we had committee hearings and all the way along the government was trying to create as much urgency as it could, saying that “We have to move this forward because of the Truchon decision”, even though there was extra content riding on that issue, far more than was dealt with in the original Truchon decision.

The justice committee held a very limited number of hearings, I think it was only four, on all of the issues raised by Bill C-7. Despite that limited time, many people came forward to express significant concerns and opposition. There were physicians, mental health experts and people representing those in the disability community, and not a single stakeholder representing the disability community expressed support for this legislation. Not only were so many people coming forward to those committee hearings, but there also were over 100 written briefs submitted to the justice committee by individuals or groups who took the time to express their perspective and, generally, their concern about this legislation.

The justice committee moved so quickly that it is a veritable certainty that members did not have any reasonable opportunity to review those briefs. In fact, many of those briefs were initially rejected by the committee; then subsequently, thanks to the good work of my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton, those briefs were formally received, but the committee then immediately proceeded into clause-by-clause consideration of the bill without allowing time to review the content of the briefs.

We had this urgency created by the government's decision to pile issues on top of the Truchon decision that were unrelated to the decision. Then we had extremely limited consultations by the justice committee, as the government tried to use this trick as a justification for pushing the legislation through as quickly as possible.

However, throughout those conversations at the justice committee, the government was clear that its bill and its policy was not to allow euthanasia when the primary underlying complaint is mental health challenges. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and others have repeatedly spoken about this aspect of the legislation, namely, that it includes an exception clearly specifying that mental health challenges should not be a basis to receive euthanasia.

On that point, the government was right, and even if members have questions about the substantive value of that position, they should appreciate how the question of whether those dealing with mental health challenges as their primary complaint should receive euthanasia is a completely separate question from the issues raised by the Truchon decision.

The bill then went through committee, came back to the House and Conservatives expressed their perspective. The vast majority of our caucus voted against this legislation. We voted in favour of report stage amendments. There was an extension of hours to accommodate the speeches. The bill then went to the Senate and the Senate has now tried to dramatically further expand the bill.

As we all know, the unelected Senate, made up now overwhelmingly of individuals who have no party affiliation and who were appointed by the current Prime Minister, undertook a study that went far beyond the scope of the existing bill and recommended a radical expansion, certainly beyond what stakeholders and the public were looking for, and beyond what had ever been considered or debated by the House of Commons.

Whatever very legitimate criticisms one might have of the old model of the Senate, made up of non-elected people with strong party affiliations and who are not not directly accountable, at least there was some mechanism of accountability through political parties. However, now we have in the Senate a vast majority of individuals who are not connected to any political party, who are not identifiable in terms political affiliations, and who are appointed by the Prime Minister without any consultation with other parties, without any kind of oversight, and who then exercise a defining power over legislation. That is a huge problem that we have to grapple with.

Part of how we could grapple with it in the House of Commons is by having the courage, when we receive amendments from the Senate that go far beyond the scope of anything considered in the original debate on the bill, never mind what was in Truchon, to say “no” to them. We could say that we appreciate the review work that has taken place, but at the end of the day, Canadians elect members of the House of Commons who are empowered to study issues in detail and to hear from Canadians and to come to conclusions.

The Senate can study and make recommendations, but, at the end of the day, what the government is now proposing by adopting the amendment proposed by the Senate with respect to mental health as its position is that the people's House, the House of Commons, should adopt in a single day something that the government had up until now said was not its policy, something that is clearly very complex and requires further study.

Not only is it unrelated to Bill C-7, but it is also completely unrelated and light years away from anything contemplated in the Truchon decision, which dealt very narrowly with the question of reasonable foreseeability.

We have this particular issue of the Truchon decision, with Bill C-7 piling many other issues on top of it, and now we have the Senate piling so many additional issues on top of that, including its proposed amendment on advance directives for those who are healthy. Somehow we, in the House of Commons, are supposed to change our position on this fundamental issue, with no study and no review at committee and the government seems to want this to happen in a single day.

I will go further than that in terms of the process. I was up last night preparing information, looking for the data. It was certainly well after 9:30 p.m. Eastern time, closer to 10:00 p.m. that the Order Paper was published. It was only then that it was evident what the government's position was. The government expects that if it takes a position on this substantive, really earth-shattering issue for Canadians dealing with mental health challenges and their family members, that members will see it and adopt that position, or in any event vote on it, all within a single day.

What a profound degeneration of our democratic institutions the government is trying to preside over. There are many other examples that we could talk about. We could talk about the lack of respect by the government for motions passed by the House of Commons on various other issues.

What we see before us right now is a government, that did not win the popular vote in the last election, telling us to, in a single day, adopt a series of changes that were proposed by a Senate made up of independents that the Liberals appointed primarily, and is complaining about members wanting to engage in these issues at greater depth.

The direction the government is taking our democracy is very troubling. I hope that members would stand with us, at least members from all opposition parties, in insisting that the government do so much better on this and support the amendment put forward by my colleague that we are debating right now that rejects this very substantive amendment from the Senate and, instead, say that if the government wants to change its policy with respect to euthanasia for those dealing with mental health challenges, it should at least propose that as part of a legislative package not constrained by a court timeline, and that the House could take the time required to study it at committee, to assess those issues and to move forward, instead of this artificial timeline created by the pairing of the Truchon decision with all of these other issues.

Those issues of process are of critical importance, but I now want to comment on the specific issues raised by this amendment, that is, the government's proposal now to allow euthanasia for people whose primary and only health challenge is a mental health challenge.

All of us, including me, have people in our lives who are close to us, either friends or family members, who have suffered from or are suffering from mental health challenges. I am sure many, if not most, if not all members of the House have had a conversation with someone in their life who comes to them and says, “I don't think I can go on. The pain I am experiencing....”

In those situations, I think for all of us, how we love those people and try to support them is by trying to show them that are loved and valued and that their lives are worth living.

We invest so much time and energy into suicide-prevention education. We try to tell younger people, older people and people of all ages that their lives are valuable, that they are loved and that their lives are worth living. We recognize that for those who are really in the depths of experiencing mental health challenges, it may feel like there is no treatment and there is no going on. However, mental health authorities have said in this country that mental health challenges are not incurable, that it gets better, that there are ways forward and that there are ways of managing, responding to and even fully addressing these kinds of challenges. We as individuals try to send the message to others in these moments of real, existential pain that they are loved and valued, and that there are ways of managing and addressing their pain.

This amendment would radically change that reality. It would take us from a world in which the emphasis is on suicide prevention for those who experience these challenges to a world in which a person who feels that they are in the depths of despair can go to a health care practitioner and say, “This is what I am experiencing. I think I cannot go on.” Instead of affirming to the person that life is worth living, they can be supported and that it does get better, the person would be told that the their options are having a practitioner work with them to try to make things better or having the state facilitate their desire for suicide.

What message does it send if we go from a dynamic of suicide prevention to one where some people experience suicide prevention and others experience suicide facilitation? What if somebody who is in the real depths of existential pain and going through deep challenges is called upon to choose between suicide prevention and suicide facilitation?

We had a unanimous consent motion adopted by the House to have a national 988 suicide prevention line. What message would it send to people if Parliament were to pass the amendment proposed by the Senate? What message would it send to people in that situation? I wonder what message it would send to young people who are dealing with these challenges.

Of course, the current legislative framework is that euthanasia is only available to those who are 18 years of age and older. That is also being considered as part of a review, so we cannot bank on that remaining a reality if this passes.

I asked what kind of message it would send to young people facing these challenges if we told them that it was acceptable to society for the state to facilitate suicidal ideation for adults, and that the solution was some kind of state-coordinated suicide facilitation. It really is horrible, in terms of the direction it would take us and the example that it would send.

Former Liberal MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette spoke eloquently and shared his perspective, from his indigenous culture and values, about what was so wrong about the government's original Bill C-14. He and I had a town hall in my riding together: a Liberal MP and a Conservative MP. We talked about many issues, most of which we disagreed on but some of which we agreed on. He made the point of asking what message it would send to younger people when older people are told that death is the solution. The values that he brought to the table underline the need for listening to Canadians on this issue. They underline the need for stronger consultation with indigenous communities.

As one previous witness told the committee on Bill C-7, indigenous Canadians are looking for medically assisted life. People with disabilities and mental health challenges would say the same thing: What they are looking for is medical assistance in living, not this rushed track, for those who are dealing with mental health challenges, toward suicide facilitation.

This needs more debate. I believe the amendment from my colleague should be supported to defeat the Senate amendment so that we can do more to protect people in vulnerable situations across the spectrum of challenges, and so that we do not, as the member for Timmins—James Bay spoke about, create a dynamic in this country where those living with disabilities are viewed or treated by our medical system as second-class citizens.

I look forward to the continuing conversation and to questions from my colleagues. Again, we need to do something like that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and next-door neighbour's passion on this topic is impressive. He is correct that this is probably some of the most important, if not the most important, legislation parliamentarians can contemplate.

While I have not had adequate time to fulsomely review the amendments put forward by his colleague, I will say that I am a supporter of medical assistance in dying. As many other people in the House have mentioned, I have watched family members deal with intolerable suffering. I have watched them lose their dignity and capacity. I support this legislation because everyone deserves self-autonomy. We must make sure that everyone can live their lives with dignity. That means affordable housing, livable income supports and proper access to mental health supports.

I would like to know what the member would say about the need for extended support for people living with disabilities, such as a federal guarantee for support for people living with disabilities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we need to look for ways of doing better to support Canadians living with disabilities, to remove barriers that they face and to work collaboratively across jurisdictions to realize those objectives. I hope there will be opportunities to debate some of the specific proposals that the NDP puts forward. I think we would certainly agree on the substance of the desire to do better. There might be some disagreements about the mechanics of how we get there.

The member is right to pinpoint the issue of the importance of autonomy and also the social architecture of choice. An individual's ability to exercise that autonomy depends substantially on the context. If people receive messages when they access the health care system about their life not being worth living, it really undermines their autonomy as well.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, first, the notion that there is homogeneity with respect to persons with disabilities on this issue is far from the truth. The Senate's sponsor of the bill is a woman with a disability who supports the initiative of the government, as does a former minister in the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, a gentleman named Steven Fletcher.

Second, hopefully the unfortunate insinuation will not be left on the record that somehow appointments by the current Prime Minister to the Senate are doing work as an end run around what the government's position had been all along. What the Senate is actually doing is taking a sober second thought, as it is constitutionally charged to do.

My question to the member is this. The notion that the Senate amendments are being taken on holus bolus is inaccurate. What is being contemplated is with respect to taking the mental illness exclusion from 18 months to 24 months for the sunset. Within those 24 months, there would be within one year a task force of experts charged with providing recommendations about how this could be done appropriately, and there would be a further 12 months for Parliament to consider how to do so and whether to do so.

Do those kinds of safeguards address the concerns that the member is raising?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed to see how the parliamentary secretary seems to have changed his position from having argued in the past about the importance and value of a general exclusion for those dealing with mental health. I would encourage him to consult his previous remarks on precisely these issues.

To the member's initial comment about there not being homogeneity in the disability community, there is not homogeneity in any community. There is not homogeneity in the Muslim community or the Christian community. There is not homogeneity among people in Alberta, but there are obviously issues where an overwhelming majority of people from a particular community express themselves through organizations that are empowered to represent them. It would be absurd, on any other issue, for me to ignore what organizations representing people from a particular community were saying, and to say that we had found a couple of people who think differently. Of course there is diversity of thought, but that does not mean we do not listen to stakeholders who represent groups that have these concerns. This is what —.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time figuring out exactly where my Conservative colleagues stand this morning.

They think the process is being rushed and that things are moving too fast, yet the process itself includes a two-year period to thoroughly examine issues related to people with mental illness. I cannot tell if things are moving too quickly or too slowly for the Conservatives.

The other thing that is so exasperating about my Conservative friends is their use of the word “euthanasia”. In a debate on a topic this delicate and sensitive, people need to be careful about their word choices. Medical assistance in dying is a comprehensive approach to caring for people. The word “euthanasia” has a harsh, cruel connotation.

Here is my question. The Conservatives seem to think we should not pass Bill C-7 now. However, there are people suffering from very serious neurodegenerative diseases who are waiting for the go-ahead from Parliament to move forward in a complicated, complex and sensitive process. What does my colleague have to say to those people today?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are many issues in there. What we have heard overwhelmingly from people in the disability community and people who are suffering from mental health challenges is that they are looking for supports to stay alive. They are looking for supports to be able to live in a way that affirms and recognizes their innate human dignity.

It is frustrating for me to hear members say that people are suffering, so we need to rush to ramp up this death option. I say let us have that same urgency to instead ramp up the life option. Let us have urgency, as parliamentarians, to give people suffering from mental health challenges and people living with disabilities the recognition, the accommodation and the rights that they need and deserve.

I will just comment on the language quickly. The etymological origin of the word “euthanasia” is “good death”. Clearly, we cannot speak of medical assistance in dying anymore because this legislation has taken us far beyond people who are in the process of dying. This is talking about the state or the health care system providing death to people who are not dying.

If the member does not like any of the existing terminology, he at least has to recognize the problem with the medical assistance in dying terminology. Perhaps we can come up with yet another word to use.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the perspectives and rationale of my colleague. In regard to the issue around providing euthanasia to individuals who simply have mental illness issues, one of our psychiatrists, Dr. Maher, who does extensive work with those who are greatly ill in that particular area, indicates that treatment takes a very long time. Therefore, it is irrational to be offering or providing MAID to these individuals when it takes three to four years of treatment to get symptoms under control, and then the next years are to thrive. Even if symptoms remain, there is the capability to do more than survive, but to cope and have a satisfying life.

I would like his comments on that.