Debates of June 1st, 2022

Public Safety and National Security

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

Madam Speaker, the member brings up a good point when it comes to the situation regarding Turkey. Certainly I would suggest that the statement that this place, Canada's House of Commons, can make in terms of support for Finland's and Sweden's memberships in NATO is significant and can show, with a unified voice, that this conversation does matter and that there could be very real consequences, not only for Turkey but for the peace and security of our world, if it were to interfere with what appears to be, from my reading of the situation across NATO, the admission of these two countries into the alliance.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about unity and unity within this place. One of the things that I think is very important is that we show solidarity and unity with our colleagues within NATO and with colleagues within the Baltic states. I am wondering if he could tell me why the Conservative Party has blocked the foreign affairs committee from going to visit our partners in NATO in the Baltic states.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not a member of the foreign affairs committee, so I would urge that member to ask members of that committee.

I think that there has been an unprecedented show of unity within this place in support of the people of Ukraine and in support of ensuring that the international rules-based order is preserved.

I would suggest that although there are political differences on the role that Canada should have as a middle power, and I would suggest that Canada should be a stronger position as a middle power in our world, there are significant political differences, certainly, between the New Democrats and the Conservatives and other political entities.

We have, I think, a unified voice, and I would hope we will continue to see a unified voice in ensuring that we can stand with the people of Ukraine, and with our allies within NATO and around the world, for that rules-based international order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 10:30 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 31, the question is deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Thursday, June 2, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Health

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, back in April, I asked the Minister of Transport when he would allow Canadians to fly again and end the mandates. I pointed out that Canada is virtually alone in the world with these anti-flying mandates. Iceland, Sweden, Ireland, France, the U.K., Argentina, Costa Rica, Denmark, Hungary, Jamaica, Thailand, Mexico, Norway and Poland are just a few of the countries that have made it possible for their citizens to fly, and they have ended the vaccine mandates. Even Cuba, a country that the Prime Minister has an interesting relationship with, has more freedom to fly than Canada.

I know that the parliamentary secretary will talk about how everything is done to protect Canadians, and the Liberals say that it is all based on science, even though their obsession on the vaccine mandate for travel is a clear opposition to the science, and that stopped long ago.

I find it appalling that this Liberal government seems to be intent on preventing over seven million law-abiding Canadians from travelling just because they do not have a vaccine passport. However, it is quite content to allow Canadians who are convicted of child sex offences to travel abroad. Under the government, convicted child predators have more freedom to travel than Canadians who have chosen not to be vaccinated.

In 2015, the Conservative government amended the Passport Act to give the minister of foreign affairs the tools to refuse or cancel passports in order to prevent the commission of sexual offences against a child in Canada or abroad. Basically, it stops Canadian sex predators from travelling and exploiting youth, especially in underdeveloped countries.

I have been keeping track of how many passports the Liberals have revoked or denied. From 2015 to 2018, in the first two years, there were only 13 cancellations or revocations and five refusals of passports to prevent sexual abuse of children abroad. Many of these were initiated, likely, under the Conservative government. Between 2018 and 2021, the government revoked zero passports to prevent child exploitation and refused only three passports.

Canada has 60,000 registered sex offenders, and 72% of them are child sexual predators. That is over 42,000 convicted child sex offenders. This government has only cancelled 13 passports and zero in the last three years, and it has refused only eight passports. Based on the organizations I work with, we are aware of convicted child sex offenders who had been convicted of the horrific offences against children and who received passports in the past few years from this government. They have been travelling abroad. I ask members to think about that.

The government is spending $30 million to implement a vaccine passport in this country to prevent law-abiding citizens from getting on planes solely because they do not have a vaccine, but if a person is a convicted sex offender, as long as they get a vaccine, they are given a passport and off they go. For example, Donald Bakker, one of Canada's most notorious sex offenders, after serving his jail time, travelled to southeast Asia to abuse young children as young as seven years old. Under this government, he got his passport back and was travelling abroad to impoverished countries over the past few years. This is unconscionable.

With 42,000 convicted sex offenders over the past seven years, and only 13 passports cancelled or refused, my question to the parliamentary secretary is this: Why is the government so focused on keeping law-abiding Canadians grounded and prohibited from travelling while convicted sex offenders can get a passport and travel? Would the $30 million not be better spend on ensuring that the passports are not being given to these sexual offenders?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to talk about our government's response to the pandemic.

Vaccination is one of the most effective tools we have to combat the pandemic and keep Canadians safe. While the provinces and territories are responsible for establishing vaccination requirements within their jurisdictions, vaccine requirements and restrictions were introduced in the summer and fall of 2021 across a number of areas of federal jurisdiction, namely at the border, among federal public servants and within the federally regulated transportation sector.

Vaccine-related policies, along with public health measures, have helped keep Canadians safe. They have supported safe working conditions and spaces for federal public service workers and travellers on federally regulated transport and have reduced the risk and impacts of absenteeism for businesses.

At the time that federal vaccine-related requirements and restrictions were introduced, overall vaccination rates were significantly lower. There was strong scientific evidence from international and domestic sources demonstrating that vaccines were effective at preventing infection against specific COVID-19 variants such as alpha and delta. There was also evidence that showed vaccines protected against severe illness, hospitalization and death from COVID-19. The benefits of vaccination continue to outweigh the risks.

It is also important for us to take stock of where we are, and have a more flexible and responsive approach in managing COVID-19.

Vaccines and therapeutics continue to be important cornerstones of our responses. We are fortunate that vaccination coverage rates in Canada are among the highest in the world, resulting in more lives saved in comparison with other countries, but there are still more opportunities to enhance our protection.

As of May 22, 2022, over 84% of the total population had received at least one dose, 81% had received two doses and more than 18 million Canadians had received a third dose. We know that vaccination does not give us full immunity from infection, but it does prevent us from getting very sick and reduces the potential need for hospitalization.

Our goal of minimizing serious illness and death is still the same; so too is our goal of minimizing societal disruption. We need to recognize that COVID-19 is not going to disappear. We have learned a great deal over the course of the pandemic, but there is still a great deal of uncertainty.

Thanks to Canadians' adherence to public health measures and high rates of vaccination, including booster doses, our outlook continues to improve. Individual public health measures, along with vaccines and therapeutics, will remain key in protecting individuals should a virulent or highly transmissible variant of concern emerge.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, under the government, a convicted child sex offender has more freedom to travel in Canada than an unvaccinated Canadian. There are four million Canadians who cannot fly. El Salvador, Cuba, France and the U.K. are all countries that have allowed their citizens to fly once again. We are the only G7 country that is not allowing its unvaccinated citizens to fly.

If the government will not let unvaccinated people fly, will it at least start revoking the passports of child sex offenders? How many passports have been refused or revoked over the past seven years?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, as Canada emerges out of the acute phase of the pandemic, the focus will shift toward ongoing management of COVID-19. Individual public health measures, along with vaccines and therapeutics, will remain key in protecting individuals should a virulent and highly transmissible variant of concern emerge. The Public Health Agency of Canada is working with its provincial and territorial partners to address the ongoing presence of the COVID-19 virus. Given the uncertainty, nimble approaches will continue to be required as measures are lifted.

Justice

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I recently posed a question to the Prime Minister regarding abuse and non-compliance under the medical assistance and dying regime. Abuse and non-compliance are not hypotheticals. They are happening, and they are well documented. Vulnerable Canadians are falling through the cracks. Quebec's commission on end-of-life care, as well as the Ontario's chief coroner's office, identified multiple cases of Criminal Code non-compliance, which is hardly something that should be taken lightly.

In April, a 51-year-old London, Ontario, woman accessed MAID after she could not find adequate housing. Her condition was not irremediable as required by law. Last month, the RCMP opened a criminal investigation into the questionable MAID death of an Abbotsford, B.C., woman who suffered from depression.

Then there is the case of Roger Foley, someone who requires 24-hour care. He was pressured to get MAID not once, but on at least four occasions. In one case, he recorded a health practitioner pressuring him to access MAID because, as she said, his care was simply too extensive.

These cases are alarming and should concern the government. They are drawing international review, including from the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, who expressed serious concerns and called on the government to conduct full investigations to ensure there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect vulnerable Canadians.

Recently in the U.K., an article was published in The Spectator entitled, “Why is Canada euthanising the poor?”

In the face of all of that, I would have thought the Prime Minister would have expressed some level of concern and compassion in answer to my question. On the contrary. The Prime Minister engaged in the worst form of politics, claiming that anyone who would raise questions of abuse was “wrapped up in ideology”. How insensitive. How beneath the dignity of this place. After all, we are talking about vulnerable Canadians. We are talking about an active criminal investigation into the death of a B.C. woman as we speak. We are talking about grieving families who have lost loved ones because the law was not followed. We are talking about vulnerable Canadians who are at risk absent the enforcement of safeguards.

Therefore, I ask the government again: Will it admit what everyone knows to be true, that there are serious abuses and instances of non-compliance, which put vulnerable Canadians at risk? What is it doing about it?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about Canada's medical assistance in dying, including the role played by federal, provincial and territorial governments in the MAID regime.

As members know, Parliament is responsible for enacting criminal law and the provinces and territories are responsible for its enforcement. The federal government has always recognized that MAID is a complex and deeply personal issue. Parliament has enacted a MAID regime that reflects Canada's evolving needs and supports autonomy and freedom of choice while also protecting those who may be vulnerable. This is why the MAID law includes stringent eligibility criteria and safeguards within the Criminal Code.

For instance, a person may only receive MAID if their request was made voluntarily and without external pressure. Additionally, MAID providers must ensure that, one, the request for MAID was made in writing and was signed by an independent witness; two, that the person was informed that they may withdraw their request at any time; three, that a second independent physician or nurse practitioner provided a written opinion confirming that the person meets the eligibility criteria; four, that the person was given the opportunity to withdraw their request, and that if the request is not withdrawn, the person gives their express consent immediately before MAID is provided.

The Criminal Code also contains additional safeguards for persons whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. For example, at least one physician or nurse practitioner assessing eligibility must have expertise in the condition causing the person's suffering. As well, there must be 90 days between the time the eligibility is assessed and the day MAID is provided, and the person must be informed of the means available to relieve their suffering, including counselling services, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care.

As I mentioned, the provinces and territories are responsible for enforcing criminal law, including the MAID provisions. They are also responsible for the provision of health care and for the regulated medical professionals in their jurisdictions. The Criminal Code provides the needed safeguards to protect the vulnerable. However, it is up to the provinces and territories to investigate and enforce situations in which practitioners may not have followed the safeguards.

Finally, the Criminal Code regulations for the monitoring of MAID are being updated to ensure that information is collected regarding race, indigenous identity and disability. Once available, this information will provide better insights into how certain groups may be impacted by our MAID regime, thus supporting the provinces and territories in the implementation of MAID and its enforcement.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, despite empty words of concern, the government has simply washed its hands clean of issues of noncompliance with the so-called safeguards that were brought in by the government.

These are matters under the Criminal Code. They fall within the jurisdiction of the government, and the government has a responsibility to ensure that safeguards are adequate and that vulnerable Canadians are not falling through the cracks under the MAID regime.

Instead, the government has ploughed full steam ahead, seeking to rapidly expand MAID as vulnerable Canadians fall through the cracks. I would submit that if anyone is wrapped up in ideology, it is the government, at the expense of vulnerable Canadians. I listed a series of cases of noncompliance, and I would ask the parliamentary secretary to acknowledge that there are instances of noncompliance and to provide a better answer than—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, the federal government acknowledges that there are many complexities surrounding MAID and the necessity to protect vulnerable persons. This is why any federal action in this area is informed by evidence, experts and independent reviews.

For instance, as members are aware, adults whose sole medical condition is a mental disorder will be eligible for MAID in March 2023. In preparation for this, and to ensure that such an expansion is done safely, the government is considering the expert panel on MAID and mental illnesses' final report, which was tabled in Parliament on May 13, 2022.

The government is also looking forward to considering the special joint committee on MAID's review of the Criminal Code provisions and their application, as well as other important issues related to mature minors, advanced requests, mental disorders, the state of palliative care in Canada and the protection of Canadians with disabilities.

Health

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here tonight to follow up on a question I asked the Prime Minister on May 18.

I think it is important in these late shows to give a little context for people who might be seeing this live, but more likely on social media after we post the clips from this. The late show is our opportunity to have a conversation in which we follow up on something where we feel like we did not get an adequate response from the government during question period. That is usually the case. We get this opportunity to choose which questions we are going to follow up on.

The parliamentary secretary who will answer my question today, and who has four minutes to respond, knows the question I am going to refer to, and has the full power of the minister's office and the Prime Minister's Office to prepare the response. We would expect a fulsome response tonight, hopefully.

The very specific question that was asked of the Prime Minister on May 18 was:

Mr. Speaker, four times in the past two weeks I have asked questions about the Canada mental health transfer: an election commitment quite obviously broken by the Liberal government. The minister never even pretended to attempt an answer.

Page 75 of the Liberal platform clearly promises immediate funding of $250 million and then another $625 million in this year's budget. There has to be an explanation as to why the Liberals broke this significant promise to vulnerable Canadians. Could the Prime Minister simply tell us what that explanation is?

Of course, the Prime Minister did not tell us what the explanation was, so I am going to elaborate a little on this.

On page 5 of the Liberal platform, the document the party used to get elected about seven or eight months ago, the Liberals said that they would:

Commit to permanent, ongoing funding for mental health services under the Canada Mental Health Transfer, with an initial investment of $4.5 billion over five years.

In the costing of the Liberals' platform, the timeline that they were promising was very clear, because on page 75 of the platform, under “New investments” and “Canada Mental Health Transfer” for 2021-22, they committed $250 million, and then for 2022-23 it was $625 million with ongoing funding for the next three years. It was very clear that the commitment was to begin immediately, yet in the budget and in any fiscal planning document that we have seen from the government since then, nowhere to be found is anything related to the Canada mental health transfer.

We had the opportunity to ask officials at committee, and they had no answers for us. On May 5, we asked the minister the question. I asked her, and she called my questions “annoying” and “despicable”, and did not give an answer. I had the chance to ask the parliamentary secretary a week later, on May 12, and she clearly did not understand the question, because she talked about the suicide prevention hotline and did not talk about the Canada mental health transfer at all. By the way, the response to the question that I did not ask about the suicide prevention hotline was not an answer at all, even in relation to that thing. I then had the chance to ask the Prime Minister.

For the parliamentary secretary, what I hope today is for her to simply point us to a financial document of the government: a budget, budget implementation bill or some other document where it is clear that the government is spending the money that it promised during the election campaign for the Canada mental health transfer.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to respond to my esteemed colleague this evening and to talk about what our government is doing to support mental health care across Canada.

We have made historic investments in mental health, including $5 billion to the provinces and territories through ongoing bilateral agreements.

Budget 2022 proposes to provide $227.6 million over two years, starting in 2022-23, to maintain trauma-informed, culturally appropriate services for indigenous people, to improve mental wellness, and to support efforts initiated through budget 2021 to co-develop distinctions-based mental health and wellness strategies.

A major challenge, one that existed for years even before the pandemic, has been the ability to access the right type of care where and when it is needed.

Sometimes people need information online. In some cases, they need peer support. Other times, they need therapy or more specialized care. We know that the pandemic has created even more challenges, as evidenced by the substantial increase in mental health needs.

That is why in the early days of the pandemic the government introduced the Wellness Together Canada portal.

To date, we have invested $270 million in this portal to offer the most appropriate care, at the most appropriate time, in the most appropriate place, delivered by the most appropriate provider.

This means that Canadians can access online information on mental health issues, mental health programs they can do on their own or with counselling, immediate text support and even confidential individual counselling through phone, video and texting with social workers, psychologists and professionals. All of this is available 24 hours day, 365 days a year and in more than 200 languages for free.

We also know that helping Canadians calls for strong partnerships with the provinces and territories, indigenous communities, mental health practitioners, researchers, diverse communities and people with lived and living experience.

An important example is the partnership established between Canada, the Standards Council of Canada and other key stakeholders to develop new national standards for mental health and substance use supports.

This work is backed by a $45‑million investment over two years, and we are very pleased with the progress made in developing national standards related to integrated youth services.

We know national standards are needed so that Canadians know what to expect in terms of timeliness and quality of mental health and substance use services, treatments and supports.

I am sure my colleague knows that, in order to improve mental health care for Canadians, we have to work hand in hand with all our partners.

Our government wants to hear from them, understand their perspectives, identify the areas in need of more investment and get this right for all Canadians, no matter where they live and the care they need.

We remain fully committed to investing a further $4.5 billion over five years to ensure that mental health care is treated as a full and equal part of Canada's public health care system.

Mental health care is health care and Canadians deserve—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, as we look to make progress on this issue, I am banking on the fact that Canadians who just heard my question and that answer will recognize that the response had nothing to do at all with the question I asked. I am going to ask it again, and I am hoping the parliamentary secretary will put away her notes and just answer the question.

In the Liberal platform that she ran on eight months ago, her party promised $250 million for a Canada mental health transfer in fiscal year 2021-22, which we were already halfway through during the election campaign. Clearly the promise was for an immediate investment in a Canada mental health transfer, with a subsequent investment of $625 million this year and then continuing for the next three years.

My question is simple and I think Canadians expect a response. Where can Canadians look to find the delivery of that promise?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government has made a firm commitment to Canadians that it will develop, fund and implement this new permanent mental health transfer. To do that, we must work collaboratively with the provinces and territories.

I know that my colleague understands without a doubt that mental health is sharply declining across the country. We have to be able to provide promising and innovative practices to ensure that all Canadians have access to care that meets their needs.

Therefore, the government is taking an approach based on consultation and partnership to deliver a new Canada mental health transfer.

We believe that mental health is a non-partisan issue, and we will work with everyone to ensure that Canadians have the mental health services they deserve.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 10:58 p.m.)