Debates of Feb. 15th, 2023

National Framework on Cancers Linked to Firefighting Act

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I just want to point out that sometimes, when we show a bit of openness in the House, when we introduce a bill that at first may get a lukewarm reception for reasons that have nothing to do with the value or intention of the bill, we see that things can evolve and move forward.

I want to congratulate my colleague from Longueuil—Charles‑LeMoyne for her work, and especially for the heart she put into this bill. As we know, this bill is incredibly important to her.

I simply want to congratulate her. I do not even want her to rise in response because I want her to spare her voice. I just wanted to make that comment to say that sometimes, when we work together on sensitive issues like this, we end up with good results. Everyone wins.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond. We have proven that we can work together, and that is what the firefighters wanted. They wanted to see all political parties rise above partisanship and work together for the same goal.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her dedication to firefighters. This bill is incredibly important, and I have definitely heard that from my riding.

My riding is large, with a lot of very small rural and remote communities. This means that the majority of the firefighters are volunteers. They do this out of the love for their community; they do not get paid for it, and they just work incredibly hard.

One of the things the NDP has proposed, through the member for Courtenay—Alberni, is the idea that we would see the tax credit increase so they could claim a bit more for the hard work they do. Would the member consider looking this over and seeing if it something the Liberals could support?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, in fact, 85% of firefighters across Canada are what we would consider volunteer part-time firefighters working in rural communities. I am fully aware of the request for increasing the tax credit for firefighters; I would welcome an opportunity to sit down with the member opposite and look at it. I think it is something we should look at.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this important debate on Bill C-224, the national framework on cancers linked to firefighting act. The bill would have a couple of really important pieces. It would establish January as firefighter cancer awareness month, and when we draw more attention to an issue, we are more likely to catch something early.

The bill would also create a national framework to increase the overall public awareness of cancers related to firefighting. This would enable better access to cancer prevention and treatment for firefighters.

As a kid, I actually grew up down the street from fire hall 3 in Fort McMurray. I had many opportunities to get to know firefighters on a personal basis. Whether they were our neighbours or my friends' dads, I got to know them as people, and they were everyday heroes to us. When Fort McMurray was overtaken by a massive forest fire about seven years ago, it was very difficult because when everyone else evacuated and left with little more than the shirts on their backs, our brave Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo firefighters stayed behind to protect our community. They did an amazing job.

They risk their lives every single day to protect our communities and our homes, and they always have our backs. Therefore, it is time we had their backs; this is a group of people who are truly heroes.

The best parade I have ever been to in my life was the Canada Day parade after the fire in Fort McMurray. There were fire trucks from all around the region, all the first nations and indigenous fire teams from the different communities, and all the fire teams from the oil companies. It was so amazing to see everyone in the community.

We had only just gotten back at the beginning of June. It was so special to have a major parade less than a month after getting back into those homes after a massive forest fire that the firefighters were still fighting. It is a memory I will have until the day I die. We celebrated them as heroes then, and in my community, we still celebrate them as heroes today.

The dangers to firefighters who race to save communities are very well known. In my community, they effectively experienced a lifetime amount of exposure to carcinogens and toxins in a month, which is virtually unheard of in that field. This is one of the big reasons I have become passionate about this. Statistical data has shown that the risk of developing cancers among firefighters is higher than it is in the rest of the population. Unfortunately, the chances of survival are often lower because they are slightly rarer cancers that are not detected as quickly.

This is something that is near and dear to my heart as someone who lost both parents to cancer at a very young age, although neither of my parents were firefighters. I know this is so important for our society. If we can keep families and friends together, it impacts far more than the firefighter; it impacts their entire family, their entire structure and the entire community. As the saying goes, it is very clear that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The only reticence I have with the bill is that in its original text, Bill C-224 was to “provide for firefighters across Canada to be regularly screened for cancers linked to firefighting”.

I supported that. I thought it was a very important piece. Unfortunately, the Liberal members of the health committee, supported by the Bloc, actually decided to water it down. It now says “to...make recommendations respecting regular screenings for cancers linked to firefighting”.

Instead of making it so the government was required to do it, it became a recommendation.

As someone who is a fierce defender of provincial jurisdiction, I can understand some of the challenge on these pieces. However, I think that it is not as strong as it could have been and that it was in the original iteration. I just want to highlight the fact that I think it was better.

I am very proud to support this bill. However, I think it was interesting because all the expert witnesses who came before the health committee highlighted that the earlier we screen for cancers, the better the outcomes.

My mom died of breast cancer when I was 21 years old. She was diagnosed when I was 20. I have had routine screenings for breast cancer since I was in my early 20s. I know that that is how I am going to save myself from that same fate of dying at 49. I know that the original intent of this bill was to do things like that so kids would get to have their parents.

I am hopeful that at some point we will get to a space where there is more robust screening for firefighters from coast to coast to coast. It is absolutely an important piece of legislation, not only for the firefighters but also, as I said, for their families, friends and entire communities. This is something to define that link between firefighting and occupational cancers or occupational diseases. This is so important because they are often people who are quick to save our homes. They are not necessarily looking out for themselves. Having more awareness about these cancers and more conversation is really how we are going to be there for them. That is our way of showing them that we care, they are important to us, they matter and their lives are meaningful.

I want to thank all members of Parliament in the debate today and all the ones who have come before me. I especially want to thank my good colleague from Barrie—Innisfil, a retired firefighter, and the member for Essex. They are two people I have come to know in this place who are former firefighters. I want to thank all Canadian firefighters for their service. I mentioned the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, but we had firefighters who came to save my community from all across the province, the country, and in fact, the world. That is something we do not get to see often, and I hope to never see it again. I hope no other community has to see it again.

Profoundly, from the very bottom of my heart, I want to thank every firefighter who serves in our communities and our nation, as well as all retired firefighters and firefighter families. I thank them. They make a difference in our lives, and we are going to do our best to support them.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to once again express my appreciation for the hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, the sponsor of Bill C-224. I want to acknowledge the work that was done with the co-operation of all parties. That happens every once in a while, and when it does, we see just how well it works. I want to point that out so we do not forget. When we work together, it can lead to great results.

There was no consensus on Bill C-224 at first. Members will recall that, when we received the first version of this bill, the Bloc Québécois had concerns about it. Those concerns were related to strong beliefs that we hold and that are integral to our political involvement. We felt that the original bill interfered in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec.

It was therefore difficult for us to readily support this bill, which is otherwise good. We cannot be against trying to improve our firefighters' living and working conditions, as well as their health and safety. I think that everyone agreed on that, but we had that one concern.

It did not take long for us to sense an opening for discussion. We appreciated it. That opening, evident from the start, meant that we were much more favourable to the bill moving forward.

By chance, I had the opportunity to replace my colleague from Mirabel on the Standing Committee on Health the day that the member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert came to speak in support of his bill. There were firefighters in the room. There were also members who had been firefighters in a past life, which resulted in testimony that was actually quite moving. Those who were there will remember.

Several firefighters from my region, Drummond, later contacted me to say how much that meeting meant to them. I am not talking about the fact that I spoke, but rather about all of the testimony given that day.

I know that my colleague from Longueuil—Charles‑LeMoyne has already heard this, but I am going to talk about when I was a firefighter. People might think it is Capitaine Bonhomme speaking, but it is not.

Many boys dream of being a police officer or a firefighter when they grow up. My dreams were different. My dream was to be a radio host, which I ended up doing eventually. On the way there, I also worked on boats. I worked as a sailor. As part of our training, we had to learn how to respond to incidents, such as fires on board and whatnot. I had only a vague, abstract notion of what firefighters did, but they shipped me off for a weekend at a firefighters' training centre. They dressed me up in the gear, which weighs a ton. Then they put me in a container they were about to set on fire and told me to figure it out.

That is not exactly how it happened. I did get some safety instructions, which I did not really listen to, unfortunately. The point is, that day was a revelation, a shock. I realized that there was more to the job than what boys of my generation thought. It was more than driving around in trucks blasting sirens and getting cats out of trees. There were huge responsibilities. These people face major risks every day on the job.

That changed how I viewed the profession. Since that day, even though I did not have to carry out those duties as part of my job at the time, I nevertheless did retain a deep admiration for firefighting, which is a vocation rather than a profession, in my opinion.

It was therefore an honour to attend the committee meeting where we discussed Bill C‑244. As a result, I remained interested in this bill. I followed it at a distance because, as I stated earlier, the member for Mirabel was more involved in this file.

I was also pleased to see the Bloc Québécois caucus change its position to support this bill and to realize that our concerns about the bill were being addressed. It is still not perfect, but I believe that what was most important to us was to ensure we were putting in place something that would better protect those who are called on to protect us. I believe that the outcome is pretty good.

As I was saying, I think there may still be other things that could be done. I think the bill is a very good starting point and a very good demonstration of the House of Commons' willingness to ensure that firefighters across Quebec and Canada feel supported and know that we are concerned about their safety.

I think the federal government could do more without encroaching on Quebec and provincial jurisdictions. For example, it could better fund research on the treatment, diagnosis and prevention of cancers, as well as on carcinogenic materials. Perhaps the federal government could make its own list of recognized cancers for its memorial grant program for first responders. It could also increase funding for municipal emergency preparedness infrastructure.

After I attended that committee meeting, I was approached by a firefighter from Drummondville, Marco Héroux. I asked him for permission to speak a little bit about the meeting we had recently at my constituency office. Mr. Héroux is a career firefighter. He has been working in Drummondville for several years and has had a number of work-related health challenges. Some of these challenges relate to certain traumas associated with firefighting work. These people witness trauma on a daily basis. It is hard for us to imagine the extent of what these individuals have to deal with in their line of work.

Mr. Héroux also had concerns about safety in fire stations. We talked about that at length as Bill C-224 was being developed. We talked about things like materials, clothing and fumes inside the fire stations themselves. We talked about how some municipalities are unable to renovate stations and install ventilation systems and protections to ensure that firefighters, who spend so much time at the fire stations, are not in contact with contaminants. This requires huge investments by municipalities, and it can be hard for them to respond to this emergency situation. It is an emergency for the health of firefighters.

The federal government could invest more in municipal infrastructure to ensure that fire stations are equipped with cutting edge ventilation systems that are beyond reproach to keep our firefighters safe and limit their exposure to cancer risks that are just as significant inside the fire station when they are not even doing responding work.

Obviously, some of the concerns I am raising may be outside the scope of the bill, but these are steps the federal government could certainly take to further improve the situation for firefighters and address their concerns over their health and safety.

I cannot help but come back to the issue of health transfers because it is such a topical issue. I think the Bloc has been tirelessly calling on the federal government to increase health transfers for many months, even years. An agreement between the federal government and the provinces seems to be coming together.

We are saying that that is not enough, that more was needed. Imagine what could have been done in terms of prevention and the implementation of mechanisms and research tools for cancer and cancer treatment. Health transfers could be used for all those things too. Those are the types of things that are missing because of the lack of funding for health care. We also need to invest to respond to these types of requests. Funding is not just needed to reduce overcrowding in emergency rooms. It is needed for many things, and I think this is a good example of why the government needs to increase health transfers.

I want to reiterate that I am pleased to see that this bill is going to be passed. I think that it is an important bill that has been long awaited by firefighters in Quebec and Canada. We can do more work on it as needs arise. I am pleased that the bill will be passed as a result of the co-operative efforts among the parties. The Bloc Québécois will enthusiastically support this bill.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to be here today to speak to Bill C-224. I want to acknowledge the member who has tabled it. I am proud to serve on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with her and really respect my Liberal friend. This is a testimony of places where collectively all parties can come together and recognize a need in our country and work together to try to make it a little bit better.

This bill provides for the development of a national framework designed to raise awareness of cancers linked to firefighting and to support improved access for firefighters to cancer prevention and treatment. It would also designate the month of January in every year as the firefighter cancer awareness month.

We know firefighters are killed by cancer around three times more than the general population and that cancer rates among firefighters increase dramatically as they age. This is an important part to remember. We are asking these people to step in the line for us and the outcomes for them are often very dangerous.

Sadly, there is inconsistent recognition of occupational cancers of firefighters across Canada, with each province and territory having a different method. This really concerns me, because we ask these folks to run into the burning building as we are running out, and we need to make sure their health is cared for in a much more effective way.

Brad Collicutt, president of IAFF Local 1298 from the Powell River firefighters, sent me a chart today of the B.C. firefighters' presumptive coverage. It states the years of cumulative employment required to claim coverage for illnesses. He said to me, “Shortened latency periods are now required as there are more and more toxic chemicals involved with fires. Firefighters are being hit with cancers faster and sooner, and latency periods need to be updated. These periods vary across Canada from province to province. This needs to change. We need consistency. For example, a member who has served 14 years and nine months is not eligible for benefits because there is a 15-year minimum service deadline.”

Firefighters simply need better. In small communities in particular, firefighters are called out to fill in a lot of other gaps in service in the communities. Fire Chief Dan Verdun, from Campbell River, noted that Campbell River has seen a significant increase in medical-type calls. Last year, out of the 3,600 calls in the Campbell River area, 2,000 were due to medical-type calls. He attributes this to the increasing shortfalls in the health care system that are being experienced across the riding. This is very concerning, because it takes up a lot of time and resources. It is something we need to look at. I know it is outside the realm of this bill, but health care concerns are growing and the impacts are tremendous and far-reaching.

This is seen in other communities in my riding. Fire Chief Brent Borg, from Port Hardy, said that there has been an increase in medical-type calls. They are now doing ambulance assist calls only, and the fire chief is really concerned that the risk is out there for people with medical needs who may or may not have the required assistance provided to them.

Fire Chief Rob McWilliam, from Gillies Bay Fire Department, is concerned about the realities they are seeing around the well-being of their members. The longer they serve, the worse the outcomes. A couple of long-term firefighters have died from cancer, and the former fire chief died from a brain tumour. He shared that a long-time firefighter with 10 years of experience died just last year. His cancer was occupation-related, in his opinion, but he was denied benefits because he had not been exposed for the minimum of 15 years. He said, “The length of exposure time they are looking for is just ridiculous.”

These folks know that the safety of their members is key and that their health is at risk just by the fact that they do their job, so they invest significant time in safety practices due to the higher instances of cancer-related deaths, including things like decontamination units and scrub-down areas. Fire Chief Borg spoke passionately about the changes they have made to care for their members over these many years.

The amount of work and dedication really should be admired and recognized. Action is the next step that needs to happen to acknowledge the long-term health outcomes of firefighters.

We ask them to deal with emergency issues and to run toward burning buildings while we are running out of them. This bill would do more to acknowledge the health outcomes of those actions. It is a start, but it is certainly not the bar of dignity they deserve. I know all of us in the House will continue to work on that.

Several months ago in my riding, a fire broke out in a trailer park in Gold River. The fire department volunteers were called and they came. The Campbell River fire station was also dispatched. It is over an hour away, so there were only volunteers on the scene.

They did an amazing job. They prevented what was already a terrible situation from becoming so much worse. I was honoured to meet with Fire Chief John McPherson and several members of his team. The Campbell River firefighters were very impressed with the Gold River firefighters' ability to do the job. We are so lucky to have them in our community. Their dedication is beyond reproach.

I am grateful for these firefighters, and I want to see their health recognized more. Volunteer firefighters need far more acknowledgement for the important work they do and for the commitments they make to our communities.

I hope that all members in this place will support my friend, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, with his private member's bill, Bill C-310. I have seconded this bill because it addresses key issues that really matter to people in my riding.

We know that volunteer firefighters are about 83% of Canada's total firefighting essential first responders. In my riding of North Island—Powell River, many of our fire stations are full of volunteers. This is how small communities work. They help each other.

Bill C-310 addresses the fact that the tax code of Canada currently allows volunteer firefighters, and search and rescue volunteers, to claim a $3,000 tax credit if 200 hours of volunteer service were completed within the calendar year.

In my opinion, this is not respectful of the work these people do. In fact, this works out to a mere $450 a year that we allow these essential workers, these volunteers, to keep as income from their regular jobs. They work to keep us and our communities safe for about $2.25 an hour.

If they volunteer more than 200 hours, which many do, this tax credit becomes even less. I want to be clear. These folks work their everyday job and then add hours of volunteer time to protect our communities.

These essential volunteers not only put their lives and health on the line, and give their time, training and efforts to Canadians, but also allow communities to keep property taxes lower than if the paid service were required. Again, it is an example of the commitment small communities have.

Bill C-310 would increase the tax credit to $10,000. This is about dignity, and this would allow these essential volunteers to keep more of their hard-earned money, which is likely to be spent in the community they live in. It would help retain these volunteers in a time when volunteerism is decreasing. If anyone has ever lived in a small community, they would realize how scary it would be if that happened.

All Canadians know we need firefighters. I am not sure how many understand the commitment and health realities they face because of their service. We must all do better.

I want to thank all the fire stations in my riding: Cortes Island, Powell River, Malaspina, Savary Island, Northside, Tal'amin, Alert Bay, Campbell River, Comox, Gillies Bay, Gold River, Port Alice, Port Hardy, Port McNeill, Quadra Island, Sayward, Sointula, Tahsis and Zeballos.

I see them working hard in their communities, their intense engagement on social media and all that they do to keep us safe. I hope all members in this place will do better for firefighters.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne has the floor for her right of reply.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank all parties for coming together to get this done. It really has been an experience to bring forward a piece of legislation and have every member of the House support it.

I bet, before I brought forward this bill, Bill C-224, that most of us did not know there was a link between firefighting and cancer. We now have 338 members of Parliament, representing every Canadian, who now know this and can help spread the word to increase awareness.

I want to thank a few people who worked with me behind the scenes on this: Catherine from my office, Trevor and Jean-Luc. A lot of times, when it comes to the work that gets done behind the scenes, they do not get the credit. I want to thank them for everything they did to help me get this across the finish line.

In closing, I have a message for the firefighter in Longueuil who inspired this bill and who celebrated his 50th birthday over the weekend. Happy birthday, Jean‑François. We are almost there.

This bill would save lives. We owe it to firefighters, and I know how proud they will be when this bill becomes law.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-39, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be joining this debate at this late hour. I understand this is an issue that is very close to many people's hearts, and a lot of members wanted to rise. I wanted to make sure I caught your eye on this one.

“The Lord rewards a good deed but maybe not right away.” That is a Yiddish proverb I have often heard. I have heard it in Polish. I love Yiddish proverbs, as many members know. Growing up in my family, my grandmother used to say them. She said them in Polish. It turns out that nearly all of them are Yiddish in their origin. That was something humorous I would talk to her about.

In this case, some members of the public think we have actually voted through things that we have not voted through. All we are doing here, directly in the summary of this legislation, is delaying making a final decision until March 17, 2024, on the repeal of the exclusion from eligibility for receiving medical assistance in dying in circumstances where the sole, the only, underlying medical condition identified in support of the request for medical assistance in dying is a mental illness.

I am prepared to speak on this piece of legislation as I have done in past Parliaments. I have been here since the 42nd Parliament, so I have been through the debate on Bill C-7, and the debate on Bill C-14.

Bill C-7 was originally the response to the Carter decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada. In it, the Supreme Court found that there was a constitutional right to seek an assisted suicide from a medical professional. It is an exemption to a part of the Criminal Code, but do not ask me to quote which section of the Criminal Code. I have, fortunately, not been burdened with a legal education, so I come at this with a layperson's eyes.

It provided an exemption. Sometimes, when I have a back-and-forth with constituents back home, I raise that point. It is an exclusion to that particular section of the Criminal Code. Then, it becomes incumbent on the federal government to put in place some measures to protect the vulnerable in society.

There were a few people who emailed me over the last few months to talk about that vulnerability, people from different sectors of our society, and how they would be affected. This is not a unanimity in my riding, but the vast majority of the people who contacted me are opposed to the extension of medical assistance in dying, or assisted suicide, for people with a mental illness, when it is the sole condition that they have. They have been very clear on this. Some of the emails are quite emotional. Some of them are a dissertation of what has happened to their family, essentially, and they give particular cases.

I want to do them justice by reading some of their thoughts without using their full names, just to protect their anonymity in the emails. I was also here for the debate on Bill C-14. I remember this debate quite vividly, because Bill C-14 came after the Truchon decision. In that decision, the court found that there was a wording we had used, irremediable or unforeseeable deaths. I remember debating in a previous Parliament and saying this would likely be struck down by the court. It was such a broad term that it could mean anything. It went beyond what the Carter decision said. It was struck down by a court. Let that be said to my friends who are lawyers. I am occasionally right on the law and about what the courts would do. They did strike it down in Bill C-14.

Now we are going back again. I understand that, today, the special committee on medical assistance in dying, which was struck by the House, finished its review and tabled the report. I have not yet had the time to completely review that report. To the constituents in my riding who have emailed me over the last few months as this issue has gained more traction, I want to read a part from Allison.

Allison wrote to me, “A family member with complex health conditions said she was asked so many times about it,...” it being medical assistance in dying, “...she wondered if her Dr. would get a commission for the procedure!! Where are the safeguards and regulations? Who protects vulnerable patients from being coerced by subtle suggestions?”

She goes on, “To be human is to experience pain, suffering and vulnerability. In my family, we have had people that have struggled with mental illness and recovered to live productive, healthy lives, thanks to support from family and community.” She is saying, “let us help you live better” should be the message we send people who are suffering from a mental health condition or a mental illness of some sort. I have known people in my life, around me, who have gone through that as well.

Lisa in my riding emailed me in December and said, “As a citizen who is deeply invested in the going ons with MAID and disability services in this country I keep current in what is happening and research.” She started off by saying that she is the mother of a child with a disability. Her son has no siblings and no close family to look out for him and advocate for him. She mentioned that once she and her husband are no longer alive, she is worried what type of country will be left behind for her son.

She uses some pretty harsh language, but it is parliamentary; I checked. She went on to say, “The way in which Canada has expanded MAID is nothing short of predatory, opportunistic and ableist.” Those are the words she uses. She asked some questions, and I do not have easy answers for her, but I will ask them openly here: “Why are they not being offered better mental health and physical health supports? Why is the government expanding MAID without first expanding holistic supports to our disabled people?”

She then says, “As a mother of a vulnerable child who one day will be left alone who may be exceptionally impressionable and dependant on our broken system I am deeply concerned about the expansion of MAID and its possible implications.” She implores us, “Do better Canada!” That was from Lisa in my riding.

Bev in my riding is very concerned about MAID being expanded to adolescents. I know that debate is going on concurrently. It is not directly in Bill C-39, because we are just talking about delaying for a year the approval of mental illnesses and mental health issues as the sole underlying conditions for applying for medical assistance in dying. However, in her email to me, she noted how vehemently opposed she is to MAID being expanded to adolescents or children and to making this expansion permanent in the law. She went on a bit, but some of it is not entirely parliamentary, so I will avoid violating the rules of the House.

Joe in my riding mentions the following: “We have already had someone in the Department of Veterans Affairs advocating Maid for those with PTSD. What terrible advice to give our veterans. Please do not proceed with eliminating those whose only problem is that they are mentally ill.” I have talked to Joe many times. He is what I would call one of my regulars, as he emails me quite often. He is very passionate about public education, I will add.

Cindy in my riding said, “At no point does a healthy family or community decide that one of its dearly beloved members is better dead than alive. The veneer of compassion is easily seen through.” She went on to make a point that really struck me:

It is indeed a slippery slope to offer MAID to the mentally ill, depressed, bipolar, and any other non-detectable illness—especially when removing the requirement that death be considered reasonably soon.

By expanding MAID in this way, the floodgates are opened for Canadians to easily choose despair over meaning in their lives.

This is the wrong direction for Canada, and an embarrassment on the international stage.

The last one I will read is from Shirley, which is very simple. She said, “Has the world gone mad?” She talks about expanding MAID to those who have a mental illness, expanding it to young people, and on and on.

Those are the types of emails I have been receiving, on top of phone calls, and those are the worries I wanted to express on the floor of the House.

Some are suffering and going through difficult times, and some are diagnosed with really serious chronic conditions that are essentially terminal, conditions like Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig's disease. The original foundational decision that Carter was gripped with was what to do about ALS, an awful condition. It is degenerative, chronic and pretty much incurable. There are many therapies out there to delay the condition. There was a member in the 42nd Parliament, an honorary chair occupant for a day, Mauril Bélanger, who passed away from it. Since then, I have met others whose family members have passed away. What I think the judges and the court were trying get at is that these are the people we should be looking after.

I want to lay this before the House. When a doctor gives up on someone, they are much more likely to give up on themselves. I have seen this time and time again. I have also experienced it myself when my disabled daughter was so sick that the four doctors in the room termed the condition “not conducive to life”. There is nothing like being told this by physicians who are supposed to look after a child, and seeing, essentially, the gentle and subtle push that my constituents talked about, which is repeated over and over. There is also the consumption of resources. That will lead to more people using the system when they have other options. Resisting the urge to just give up is difficult to do at the best of times, and people need community and family support all around them.

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

Madam Speaker, I note there are a number of inconsistencies in what my colleague is saying about MAID for people with a mental health issue as the sole underlying condition. The expert panel reported on MAID and has made a number of recommendations. I know the extension we are seeking today is about ensuring that all of our systems can be in place, so I am wondering if my friend could reflect on what the expert panel has said in clearly outlining what is required and the safeguards in place for MAID to be extended to those with a mental health issue as the sole underlying condition.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, the ones I have noted on the record and the many others I have spoken to, I will say that they are not so much interested in what the expert panel had to say. They simply do not want the extension to happen, and I do not mean a delay. If the government is looking for a pat on the back and a reward for a good deed, as the Yiddish proverb goes, it is not going to happen right away.

For my constituents, I think the starting point is that there is a lack of trust, because they read stories of people who have accessed MAID and who had a condition that did not fit the description given in law. Because there are different provinces applying it in different ways and physicians have applied it in a fairly subjective way, there is a very low level of trust from constituents in my riding.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is one issue that has been raised many times in the House, and that is the issue of mental health. To date, the government has refused to make the investments needed to help people and to ensure that all Canadians who need mental health care receive it. This is not happening right now because of the lack of funding and resources.

I want to know what my colleague thinks of the government's mental health funding. Is it not important to make investments so that people will always have options when it comes to mental health?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, it could get interesting with two members from western Canada debating in French in the House on the topic of mental health.

I think that program funding and increased government services are not the only things that matter when it comes to mental health. There is the role of the family and the community. It is about having a career, a profession and a reason to live. There is faith, which is very important for many people.

Of course, it would be good for the government to provide more services to people having mental health issues or difficulties and who are asking for help. The provinces are responsible for providing the services. I know that my province of Alberta is working hard to ensure that people have a choice and access to services, but more can be done in the communities to provide services in rural regions and big cities. That said, I want to reiterate the importance of family, friends, work and faith, all of which must also play a role.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Prior to asking my learned colleague a question, I want to reflect on the life of a constituent who passed away over the holiday break. That was Paul Da Silva. I am very sorry for his family's loss, and I wish his wife and children all the best in this difficult time. May eternal light shine upon him.

My question to my learned colleague is this. We just heard from the parliamentary secretary about an expert panel. Typically, in law, when we talk about expert panels, they generally come down to what the court says. In this case, I am not sure if my colleague is aware, but I would like him to comment on how no court, from what I can see, has unequivocally stated that there is a right to medical assistance in dying for people who are mentally ill. I would like his comment on that.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the beginning of his comments sounded almost like an S. O. 31, and I encourage the member to try to catch the Speaker's eye the next time he rises.

He is absolutely right. From what I can tell, at no time in the decisions of Truchon or Carter, and I have read both, did the government say there was a right to die in Canada because of an underlying mental illness as the only condition.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want my constituents to know that I am staying in the riding to take care of my newborn, but I am happy to participate, in hybrid fashion, on their behalf on this very important subject.

Bill C-39, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding medical assistance in dying, seeks to delay the expansion of medically assisted death to individuals whose sole condition is a mental illness. We are here today because of previous legislation in the last Parliament, Bill C-7, that responded to the Truchon decision and the justice minister's interpretation of it by removing critical safeguards to accessing MAID, particularly that death must be reasonably foreseeable. However, Bill C-7 contained an arbitrary deadline of March 17, 2023, to expand MAID to those whose sole condition is a mental illness, and now the government is seeking to delay that arbitrary deadline another year down the road.

As I do not want MAID to be offered to those who are solely suffering from a mental health issue, I will be supporting the bill, but I do so in the context of very big and life-altering concerns regarding the direction the Government of Canada has taken since the debate on MAID commenced in 2016.

The Conservatives believe that we should never give up on those experiencing mental illness and should always be focused on offering help and treatment rather than assisted death. The Conservatives will bring forward alternative proposals to support those with mental illness instead of the government's approach.

Going back to 2016, the preamble of Bill C-14 spoke about the vulnerability of persons. It states:

Whereas vulnerable persons must be protected from being induced, in moments of weakness, to end their lives

It also states:

Whereas suicide is a significant public health issue that can have lasting and harmful effects on individuals, families and communities

Man, have we seen a lot of change in the last seven years.

Conservative members at the time, despite these assurances in Bill C-14, observed that the approach of the government was going down a slippery slope. The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman highlighted a concern that has sadly now become a reality in Canada. He stated, “many believe that the policy will be used prematurely to end the lives of those who have become a burden to their families, society, or the medical system.”

At the time, because of big public concerns, many Liberal members were careful when it came to speaking about expanding MAID in the future. The former justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, said, “In terms of eligibility, the policy choice made by the government was to focus on persons who are in an advanced state of irreversible decline and whose natural deaths have become reasonably foreseeable.” The current member for Lac-Saint-Louis said, “Bill C-14 would not normalize medically assisted dying as perhaps has occurred in Belgium and the Netherlands, the two most often cited examples of the slippery slope.”

In the last Parliament, in his charter considerations on Bill C-7, which expanded MAID to include those without a reasonably foreseeable death, the current Minister of Justice cited inherent risks and complexity as a reason not to expand MAID to those with mental illness as a sole condition. However, the Minister of Justice, unfortunately, as we find today, is speaking on both sides of this issue very irresponsibly. On the one hand, he communicated in the Bill C-7 charter consideration that due to the complexity and inherent risks, we should not be expanding MAID to those with mental illness as a sole condition. On the other hand, in the same bill, he included a sunset clause to expand MAID to these Canadians and said that his hands were tied by a Quebec court decision. However, not only has the government refused to challenge it at the Supreme Court, but leading legal experts in our country have stated that his interpretation of the decision is flawed.

After telling Canadians time and again that the legalization of MAID would not lead to a slippery slope by allowing death on demand for any citizen whenever they may want it, the government seems set on expanding MAID to anyone.

I plead with the backbench members of the Liberal Party to stand up against the justice minister today. You have more influence than any Canadians right now to stop what he is trying to do.

Do not forget that in 2016, on Bill C-14, he voted against the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have a point of order from the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I can certainly appreciate the passion in the member's speech, but he did just start talking directly to Liberal members. He said, “You have...”, and I am certain he was not talking about you. Perhaps he would like to rephrase that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I appreciate the hon. member noticing that.

Yes, the hon. member has to speak through the Chair. That is just a reminder.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Through you, Madam Speaker, I implore the Liberal members of Parliament to stand up against their justice minister and the irresponsible decisions he is taking.

Across Canada every year we celebrate Bell Let's Talk. Mental health services have expanded in hospitals, schools and universities because there is an inherent belief by all Canadians that mental health challenges are things we can overcome. Every family in this country is impacted by mental health, and it pains me to see my country considering offering death to those suffering at their lowest points. We do not need to do this.

Again, through you, Madam Speaker, I implore Liberal members to challenge the justice minister on his overly broad interpretation of the Truchon decision, a ruling of the Quebec court, and to stop what he wants to do.

A recent article in The Globe and Mail talked about Donna Duncan, a 63-year-old woman from my community. Her daughter successfully delayed, through the court, her mother's access to MAID because her mother suffered from a mental illness. However, just hours after leaving the hospital, Donna received a medically assisted death without her daughters being informed, even though their mother already suffered from a mental health condition that was documented.

Both daughters, Alicia and Christie, testified at the medical assistance in dying committee and they made a number of recommendations.

The first, which seems so sensible, is “mandatory access to health care”.

The second is an increase in the required number of independent witnesses to be formally interviewed as part of the assessment, to at least three.

The third is “...a pre-death assessment review. Doctors should be required to submit all assessments to an independent review board prior to a patient's death.”

The fourth is “continuity of care. Multiple assessments should be completed by the same medical professional.”

The fifth is “mandatory wait periods”.

The sixth is “...mandatory release of records. Hospitals and health authorities should be required to release unredacted copies of their MAID assessment records to those who are entitled to them.”

I would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that, when Bill C-39 was tabled in Parliament, the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada called for this delay at the beginning of December. I will note as well that University of Toronto law professor Trudo Lemmens and numerous colleagues from across Canada challenged the Minister of Justice on his actions today.

Again, my plea today is to the Liberal caucus, through you, Madam Speaker, to challenge the decision of the justice minister, not to irresponsibly expand MAID in one year's time for those suffering from mental health. Canadians know that mental health can be overcome. Canadians know that this does not have to be the solution. Canadians know that they want to take care of people when they need to be taken care of.