Debates of Feb. 15th, 2023

Housing

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners point out that in Canada more than 600,000 social housing units that were created between 1970 and 1994 were provided through long-term agreements with social housing providers. They point out that these agreements are essential to provide affordable housing options to people, particularly tenants, with a maximum of 30% of their income dedicated to rent.

The petitioners point out that the federal government today is still refusing to renew those agreements, many of which have expired. They are calling on the federal government, in collaboration with the provinces and other stakeholders, to renew the funding of long-term social housing operating agreements in order to preserve rent subsidies and provide funds for the necessary renovations for this critically important housing stock.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition on behalf of my constituents calling on the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to update the immigration system to pave the way for efficient processes that address Canada's ongoing needs. The petitioners are raising the fact that, since 2015, the immigration backlog has increased to 2.1 million applications.

I will draw attention to specific points the petitioners make in this petition. On refugee travel document applications, where the department has a goal of beating the standard of 20 days 90% of the time, the IRCC meets that standard only 15% of the time. The certificate for identity applications has a goal of beating the service standard of 20 days 90% of the time. Sadly, only 15% are processed on time.

This is causing stress. It is a lack of dignity to the applicants by the department. This department has received double the funding since 2015. We have doubled the FT and full-time equivalent staff, and despite that, the backlog is still 2.1 million, so petitioners are calling on the minister to fix the problem he has created.

Nuclear Weapons

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table today.

In the first petition, petitioners recognize that it has been 77 years since the first use of nuclear weapons, which demonstrated their awesome power, yet we remain today under constant threat of warfare that could result in devastation from which the world would never recover. They also recognize that the Government of Canada has published statements saying that it is committed to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.

They also note that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has been signed by 86 countries, and ratified by 66, but not by Canada, and they recognize that, as a non-nuclear state, Canada is in the best position to comply with the articles of the TPNW and to guide its allies in other nations towards a world free from nuclear weapons.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to sign and commit to ratifying the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and to urge allies and other nations to follow suit.

Persons with Disabilities

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

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, petitioners recognize that disability financial support payments in Canada are currently far below the official poverty line. They also recognize that 1.5 million disabled Canadians currently suffer every single day in a state of legislated poverty, and they recognize that the government continues to allow the wealthy, well-connected and multinational corporations to horde billions in offshore accounts, or forgo taxes and fair prices for our country's resources.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to end the current practice of legislated poverty of Canadians living with disabilities and establish a federal disability benefit of $2,200 a month.

Federal Tax Expenditures

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, in both official languages, a document entitled “2023 Report on Federal Tax Expenditures”.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from February 13 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

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, I want to thank the constituents of Niagara West for electing me to represent them in Parliament and be their voice in this place on the key issues of our country. What is more important than the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-39, respecting medical assistance in dying? We all know how sensitive and complex a topic this is. We as parliamentarians, with this bill, are dealing with the issue of literal life and death, which is a deeply personal decision, and that is as complex as it gets.

On both sides of the House, the focus and priority of all of us is to ensure that safeguards are always in place for the most vulnerable people in our society, particularly for those with mental health challenges. I believe that we are all trying to get this legislation right. Lives are at stake, and again, we need to get this right. We also have to keep in mind that we have to be respectful and accepting of the different perspectives on this issue.

Many folks from my community in Niagara West are people of faith, and they are struggling with this concept of doctor-assisted suicide. This issue is of particular importance to the thousands of my constituents who took the time to write letters, send emails and make phone calls to my office to express their views. This is an issue that is exceptionally difficult to accept for many Canadians across the country, including those in my riding of Niagara West.

The planned legal death of someone who is terminally ill is a very delicate matter to begin with, but to open up the door for more people to qualify on mental health grounds, to me and to many of my constituents, is even more troubling. These folks want to ensure that we, as the representatives in this place, safeguard human life in the aftermath of the Carter v. Canada Supreme Court decision.

There is also strong concern that people with mental health issues may be persuaded into ending their lives while they are in a state of personal suffering. That is wrong, and I am sure that we all want to prevent that kind of thing from ever happening to anyone. I am also concerned that there may be horrible stereotypes reinforced, such as that that a life with a mental health challenge is not a life worth living, or that living with it is a fate worse than death. This cannot happen.

I know it has already been discussed, but I would like to provide some information and context for my constituents who are not yet aware of how we got to this point and why we are currently discussing medical assistance in dying in Parliament.

On February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that grievously suffering patients had the right to ask for help in ending their lives. This was the Carter v. Canada decision. In other words, the Supreme Court made medical assistance in dying a legal right for Canadians under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court declared that paragraph 241(1)(b) and section 14 of the Criminal Code, which prohibited assistance in terminating life, infringed upon the charter rights of life, liberty and security of the person for individuals who wanted to access an assisted death. The Supreme Court decision was suspended for a year to give the government time to enact legislation that reconciled the Charter of Rights of individuals and patients. As a result, the government introduced Bill C-14 on April 14, 2016, and it received royal assent on June 17, 2016. Medical assistance in dying has been legal ever since.

An important fact to remember, once again, is that the legalization of assisted death began with the Supreme Court decision in Carter v. Canada. The last time I spoke to this issue, I reiterated my concern, and the concern expressed by thousands of my constituents, that there simply are not sufficient safeguards for those who are most vulnerable in relation to accessing medical assistance in dying. I feel the same today.

I believe my esteemed colleague from Calgary Nose Hill is absolutely correct. This week, she spoke to the same bill and said that she finds it reprehensible and an abdication of responsibility of every parliamentarian of every political stripe to allow medically assisted dying to be extended to Canadians with mental health challenges, given the abject, miserable state of mental health supports in Canada. She spoke about the difficulties in accessing mental health supports across the country, and I believe she is correct. Mental health services are not readily available. They are also very expensive. The availability of quality mental health services must be there across the country before we even start to consider this debate on legislation that allows folks experiencing mental health issues to seek medical assistance in dying.

Let us not forget something very important here: One of the symptoms of a mental health issue is the unfortunate thought of wishing to die. How can we not get our mental health care system in order first before we contemplate allowing folks to commit medically assisted suicide because of a potentially treatable mental health challenge? I cannot fathom a life being lost because of a treatable mental health issue that went untreated because of a lack of quality and available supports.

I am sure my hon. colleagues have also heard the story of an Ontario man who requested MAID, not because he wanted to die, but because he thought it was a preferable alternative to being homeless. Housing is another major issue the government has not adequately addressed. We should not be a country where folks who are homeless should live in such despair that they feel they have no option than to request medical assistance in dying.

In another story, a disabled Ontario woman applied for MAID after seven years of applying for affordable housing in Toronto with no luck. I think we are all in agreement that these types of cases should never happen.

I am also very concerned about the mental health of all Canadians, given the difficult times we are in. Inflation is at a generational high. The cost of groceries is up 11%. Half of Canadians are cutting back on groceries, and 20% of Canadians are skipping meals. The carbon tax is being tripled, adding unnecessary costs to families’ gas, grocery and home heating bills.

The average rent in Canada’s 10 largest cities is more than $2,200 a month, up more than $1,000 a month over the last eight years. Average monthly mortgage costs have more than doubled, now costing Canadians over $3,000 a month. We are seeing a record number of Canadians visiting food banks.

All of this takes a tremendous toll on the mental health of families, seniors and especially those suffering with mental illness and other vulnerable groups. Life was not exactly easy for many people before the pandemic, and it has certainly gotten worse with the inflationary crisis we are in. The important thing to remember here is that investments into mental health services must be made a top priority, because as we all agree, mental health is health.

Let us turn back to Bill C-39. I believe there should be strong safeguards to ensure those most vulnerable never fall through the cracks and end up on a list of people to be medically put to death before they have exhausted all avenues to live a meaningful life.

Let us be clear about something, medical assistance in dying is a tremendously difficult issue to debate. It is a highly emotional topic, and there are many factors and personal convictions that come into play. We agree on many things, but we also disagree strongly on others.

On this issue, specifically, we must respect and listen to one another’s views as we chart the course of our future and the future realities of those who are most vulnerable. We can either signal to them that we care by expanding mental health supports and investing in quality services, or we can unfortunately go down a dark path of allowing those who are struggling with treatable mental health challenges the opportunity to end their lives.

I support investing in our people by providing quality and easily accessible mental health treatments. However, this is not what the government’s Bill C-39 does. It seeks to delay, for one year, the implementation of provisions that would expand the availability of assisted dying to those whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. That is wrong.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government has brought forward this delay to their MAID expansion because they failed to heed the concerns of our Conservative members, mental health advocates and Canadians when they passed legislation in 2021. I personally do not believe that we should ever give up on those experiencing mental illness. According to the most recent polls, a majority of Canadians would agree with me.

A majority of Canadians oppose the government’s plan to offer assisted dying to patients with incurable mental illness. The Angus Reid poll shows 51% of respondents said they oppose the expansion of medical assistance in dying to Canadians whose sole condition is mental illness. In other words, 51% of Canadians believe that we should be focused on offering help and treatment rather that assisted death.

Having said all this, at this point we will be supporting this delay to prevent the immediate expansion of assisted death to those suffering with mental illness. In the near future, we will bring forward alternative proposals. My hope is that the we all uphold the original objective of the initial legislation, which was “to affirm the inherent and equal value of every person’s life and to avoid encouraging negative perceptions of the quality of life of persons who are elderly, ill or disabled.” That we must protect “vulnerable persons...from being induced, in moments of weakness, to end their lives.”

This issue is very important to me and to many of my constituents, and I look forward to working with all my colleagues, from all parties, to get this right.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for a balanced presentation on this issue.

I think his concern about the availability of mental health services is entirely fair. However, I do take issue with one thing the member said, which is that he held open the possibility of medical assistance in dying being an option for someone with a treatable mental illness. That is not the legislation. The legislation limits the right to medical assistance in dying to those who have an irremediable condition. Therefore, the fear that someone with a treatable condition would be able to avail themselves of medical assistance in dying is one that will not materialize.

As for the availability of mental health supports, the member would be well aware of the successful negotiation between the Government of Canada and the provinces for a substantial infusion of cash. This will absolutely increase the level of service available to Canadians with respect to mental health services.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of our concerns right from the beginning was the slippery slope of how this could move forward if the proper safeguards were not put in place.

I would say, the majority of mental health issues can be healed, fixed and treated, and when the first forum came out in terms of what they were doing, they looked at the imminent death of an individual. However, I realize that by adding more and more categories to this, we would get on a very slippery slope. For those who are treatable, we believe they should receive treatment and not death.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that people should not be induced to turn to medical assistance in dying in moments of weakness. I do not know where he is getting that from, but I just want to say that the expert panel's report on mental disorder makes no mention of that. When it comes to socio-economic determinants, which my colleague raised, the experts say that they need to be taken into account but that they are not part of the criteria for having access to medical assistance in dying.

I am not sure what he is talking about, but one thing is certain. Members need to stop using scare tactics all the time. Basically, the Conservatives are against medical assistance in dying in every situation, not just in the case of mental disorder. Many of them are even opposed to it when a person is terminally ill and already dying.

I would like to say to my colleague that, if he knows of any cases where a person has been induced to seek medical assistance in dying, then he must report them. The Criminal Code would apply, the police would intervene and those people would be brought to justice.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that it has been one of the challenges. We have heard of people calling Veterans Affairs looking for services and being recommended to consider MAID as an option. Therefore, I do not think it is reasonable to say that it does not happen, and this is the challenge when we do not have the proper safeguards.

As I said before, it is about safeguards, and our caucus varies across the board in terms of where we are at on this. I personally never supported MAID, but I understand that, in irremediable situations where there is pain and imminent death, there may be choices. However, I am very concerned that people who are down on their luck, having a hard time or concerned about being a burden to society could consider a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-39, an act to amend an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to medical assistance in dying, which was introduced by the Minister of Justice on February 2.

Through this bill, our government is seeking to extend the timeline that will expand eligibility for MAID where the sole underlying medical condition identified in support of the request is a mental disorder.

Our government is committed to ensuring that the MAID framework is prudent, well‑thought‑out and rigorous so that the assessment and provision of medical assistance in dying is safe. At this point, we believe that delaying the repeal of the exclusion is the best way to achieve these objectives.

It is crucial to strike a balance between promoting the autonomy of those seeking a dignified end and protecting the interests of those most vulnerable in our society. Our government believes that this is the right decision given the inherent complexities of MAID requests that are based only on a mental disorder.

My comments will focus on the current MAID framework, including eligibility criteria and existing Criminal Code protections, and on the broad range of opinions from the public, the medical establishment and other experts, in particular the organizations representing persons living with a mental health disorder.

At present, to be eligible for MAID, an individual must meet five criteria.

All applicants must be eligible for health services funded by the Government of Canada, be at least 18 years of age and capable of making informed decisions relating to their health, have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, have requested MAID voluntarily and not as a result of external pressure, and provide informed consent to receive MAID after being informed of available means to relieve their suffering.

As I just mentioned, one of the criteria is a grievous and irremediable medical condition, which means that the person must have a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability; that their medical situation is characterized by an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; that their illness, disease or disability or advanced state of irreversible decline in their capability causes them to experience enduring intolerable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be relieved under conditions that the person considers acceptable.

In addition to these eligibility criteria, the Criminal Code also provides two sets of procedural safeguards that must be met before MAID can be provided. The first set of safeguards addresses situations where death is reasonably foreseeable, and the second, more stringent set applies to requests for MAID where death is not foreseeable.

The safeguards for MAID requests where death is reasonably foreseeable include that the request must be made in writing and signed before an independent witness, as well as that the person must be informed that they may, at any time and in any manner, withdraw their request.

There are four additional safeguards when death is not reasonably foreseeable. This is because these MAID requests are more complex than when death is reasonably foreseeable. The four additional criteria are as follows.

A second physician or nurse practitioner must confirm in writing that the person meets the eligibility criteria. There must be at least 90 days between the first MAID assessment and the date on which MAID is administered. The person must be informed of alternative available means to alleviate their suffering, such as counselling services, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care, and offered consultations with relevant professionals who provide those services. Finally, both physicians or nurse practitioners must agree that the person has given serious consideration to those means.

If this bill is not passed, requests for medical assistance in dying where the sole underlying medical condition is mental health will become available on March 17, 2023.

I will now briefly discuss some of the concerns that we have heard regarding the upcoming expansion. In their May 2022 submission to the Special Joint Committee on MAID, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health expressed that “Before eligibility is extended, there must be thoughtful and inclusive discussions to develop consensus definitions of irremediableness and suicidality.” We believe that the extra year will allow for the necessary consideration of these important topics.

In addition, in November, the Canadian Psychiatric Association issued a statement in favour of delaying the repeal of the exclusion from medical assistance in dying in cases where a person's sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. The CPA is of the opinion that more time is needed to improve education on suicide prevention and access to mental health and addiction services; to develop an expert-approved definition of the irremediability of different mental disorders; and to develop approaches and procedures to help clinicians distinguish between suicide and access to medical assistance in dying.

In December, the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention also issued some observations in support of the delay. It would like more research to be done into the prognosis of mental disorders in order to draw conclusions on the irremediability of any mental disorder, which is a legal requirement within our MAID framework.

Many of these concerns were raised during the hearings of the Special Joint Committee on MAID, which was established to undertake a review of the Criminal Code MAID provisions and other related topics, including mental illness. The committee’s final report was released this week. One of the reasons for the extension is so that the government can seriously consider the recommendations of this committee.

The government believes that extending the exclusion of mental illnesses is necessary to ensure that MAID is provided appropriately in all circumstances where a mental illness is the sole medical condition for requesting MAID.

I hope that all members will join me in supporting this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when members had the special joint committee, they had a great deal of consultation with many different stakeholders. A lot of evidence was provided. Earlier today, the Chair presented the report. It is worth recognizing that a majority of the political parties inside this House seem to support Bill C-39.

Can the member comment on whether the extensive discussions and dialogue that have occurred have in fact improved our system? Could she add value to anything I have said?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and comments. As he said, the report was tabled this afternoon.

During discussions at the Special Joint Committee on MAID, we heard from a wide range of partners, associations and people who had concerns. The discussions led us to make the decision to extend the delay for those whose sole medical condition is a mental illness. That way, we will have time to set things up properly and ensure that doctors and nurse practitioners are ready to provide MAID under these conditions. Things must be done properly to respect autonomy and freedom of choice.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if my colleague believes that one year will be enough time for the government to ensure that this bill is as perfect as possible.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this important question. There have been discussions on this issue. Should expanding MAID to people with mental disorders be delayed by six months, nine months or twelve months?

With guidance from the Minister of Justice and his team, and keeping in mind what we have heard, we do believe that one year will be sufficient, especially since the expert panel is already developing an accreditation program and standards of practice.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like to know more about her perception of what the Conservative members are doing, since they seem to be fearmongering. It could even be described as spreading misinformation.

The Conservatives are suggesting that anyone with a mental health issue could request and be eligible for medical assistance in dying.

I wonder if my colleague could explain why this rhetoric is false. I would also like her to tell us what she thinks of the approach that the official opposition is taking.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague for his question. I condemn this practice of spreading disinformation. It leads Canadians to believe things that are simply not true.

I talked in my speech about all the safeguards that are in place to provide MAID to people whose only medical condition is a mental health disorder.

This must be done under controlled conditions, after these individuals have accessed services and after a determination has been made by physicians or nurses. We all know that the process is well regulated and that rules must be followed.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand today to speak on behalf of the constituents of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, a riding I am very proud to represent. If the Speaker will permit me just a bit of latitude, I have not had the opportunity before now to remember former colleague and member of Parliament Ray Boughen.

Ray was a dedicated public servant, but his earliest calling was as an educator. He was a long-time teacher and principal before being elected as mayor of Moose Jaw for two terms, from 1994 to 2000. He went on to serve as a trustee on the Prairie South School Division from 2000 to 2008 before entering federal politics. He served two terms as member of Parliament for Palliser before retiring in 2015.

Ray was instrumental in the early stages of my political career. Under his recommendation, or probably dare, I served as city councillor and later as mayor of Moose Jaw. My heartfelt condolences go out to his wife Sandra, his daughter Patti, his son Ryan, all his family and friends, the students who have been left behind and the people who know him.

Once again we are here debating an issue the Liberals have waited until the last minute to address. They have had years to work on this, and only now, as their polling numbers decline and their deadline approaches, are they finally listening to experts and putting the brakes on allowing medically assisted death for those suffering from mental illness.

This is a government of press releases and talking points. Quite honestly, the government has been forcing the issue without public consultation, and now there is a realization it does not have the support of the public. People have grave questions and concerns, and we are seeing that in almost every article we read in the news.

Instead of opening Pandora's box and seeking proper consultation before introducing policies like MAID, the Liberals have again been forced to backtrack. They have ignored experts, relying instead on their own ideology. This is a government that is out of touch with the everyday Canadian and will do absolutely everything to ignore good policy and common sense.

When experts come along with information that does not align with the Prime Minister's carefully drafted talking points, they are ignored, like the experts from the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada, who in December told the government that Canada was not ready to expand MAID to those suffering from mental illness.

If the government were serious about helping and treating people, it would work to ensure that access to qualified psychiatrists was easier to obtain than offering MAID. The government opened Pandora's box, and now we are seeing the results impacting our veterans community and have heard troubling testimony at my committee.

There are now multiple instances of the Department of Veterans Affairs discussing the topic of medical assistance in death with Canadian veterans. We heard one particularly troubling account of a veteran, who said he was “in a good place”, being told MAID was an option. He was told by a caseworker that they have done it before and they can do it for him. This is unacceptable. This is a conversation that should only be held between a patient and a doctor.

Now it has become so bad that the minister has been forced to refer one case to the RCMP. He now thinks the issue is done with. The truth is that there is a much deeper issue at play here, and many others have come forward since the minister has dismissed this.

Veterans who served our country and who now need their country are being betrayed by the government. Regardless of one's thoughts on MAID, when the law was passed, it was stated that any discussion of it had to be between a patient and a doctor. If the government's own departments cannot grasp this simple fact, how can we trust them to develop guidelines for mental health and the mental health industry?

This is beside the fact that wait times for veterans in Canada to receive treatment are skyrocketing, with many waiting almost a year. It can be even longer if someone is a francophone or a female veteran. Meanwhile, the wait time to obtain MAID is currently just 90 days.

After eight years of the Liberal government, everything is broken. Canadian veterans need help, and veterans needing help are seeing wait times skyrocket, not decline. There are veterans who are homeless and on the streets, and the Liberal government has withheld funding for veterans who are desperately in need.

Veterans took an oath to serve their country. They were ready to die for their country. Veterans with PTSD need help. They are not ready to be systematically eliminated by the government.

I mentioned something earlier about opening Pandora's box. Medical assistance in dying cannot be undone. I grew up in a single-parent home, and my mother suffered from postpartum depression. She had tough days, and there were days when she did not want to leave her bed. As a young child, I witnessed this, but every night has its morning, and there were people there for her. Whether it was family, friends or the local church, people gathered round. They were there to help.

Many people call this hope, and hope comes in different forms. To offer MAID, we take away that hope. Let us not take away hope for people who want help. Let us show compassion and care.

I ask this House, “What is the most valuable commodity in Canada?” Many will say it is minerals, some will say fertile grounds and some will say our abundant and clean energy. I would argue that it is the people of this great country.

The people of this country are the most valuable commodity we have. The potential of our country lies in its people. Let us not devalue a person who is in need of help because they are suffering from mental health issues, suffering from PTSD, suffering from depression or suffering from anxiety. These are the people who need hope.

I am not prepared to give up on people who need our help, because people did not give up on my mother. I am motivated by first-hand experience, and because I have a vested interest in the next generation, this is important to me. When I started out in politics to serve my community, I asked myself these four questions, which I will ask my colleagues here. What kind of kids do we want living in our communities? What kind of community produces that kind of kid? What kind of leadership produces that kind of community? What kind of people provide that leadership?

I believe in hope, and I want to send the right message to the people of Canada: They are valued; they mean something. I also want to send the right message to the next generation, an important message: Times may get tough, but there is hope.

I will be voting in favour of the bill, but I hope the government reconsiders its position on MAID.