I will ask the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to give a very quick answer.
House of Commons Hansard #363 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was maid.
House of Commons Hansard #363 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was maid.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
I will ask the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to give a very quick answer.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague.
I want to come back to the fact that the situation for persons with disabilities in Canada is deplorable. That is why I am saying that this needs to be addressed, but not in this bill. This is another issue—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
I am sorry, but we have to resume debate. We are over the allotted time. I have been very generous with the time.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester has the floor.
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Madam Speaker, it is an absolute honour, as always, to stand here in the House of Commons to debate things that are of critical importance to Canadians. Certainly, having had the opportunity to serve on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, I think it is important to have the ability to stand here today and allow Canadians to understand some of the difficulties that exist and why Conservatives put forward a dissenting report, which is easy for Canadians to find.
Much of the deliberations at the special joint committee were related to mental disorder as the sole underlying medical condition, so-called “mature minors”, persons with disability and advance requests. Clearly, the plight of Canadians under the NDP-Liberal government has increased the usage of MAID in this country, and I will go on to cite several examples of that as we go through this. I think that it is absolutely and incredibly important to look forward to. If I may, I will read a bit from the dissenting report.
We acknowledge that medical assistance in dying is a complex and deeply personal issue on which reasonable and well-intentioned people can disagree. However, there are serious problems with Canada's MAID regime.
Vulnerable people are being put at risk because of the Liberal government's failures. Regardless of one's views on MAID in principle, these issues cannot be ignored.
After nine years of increased poverty and despair under this Prime Minister, Canadians are turning to MAID because they cannot afford to live with dignity.
I would say that this statement is incredibly important in allowing Canadians to understand that, as far as Conservatives are concerned, those Canadians who are well intentioned and well informed are about to speak about this incredibly emotionally charged topic in a hopefully non-partisan way on behalf of Canadians.
As a former practising physician, these are issues that came up multiple times when I was practising medicine. Medical assistance in dying is something that came about during my time in practice. When I first started practising, medical assistance in dying was not out there to be considered. That being said, I certainly feel it is something that I can provide some insight on.
I think one of the other things that is really important for Canadians to understand, and I know my colleague spoke a bit about this, is how Canada and the Canadian regulations around MAID are perceived around the world. I will quote the American Journal of Bioethics. The title of this particular article is “When Death Becomes Therapy: Canada’s Troubling Normalization of Health Care Provider Ending of Life”. It is a telling commentary on how the regime here in Canada is perceived.
I will quote a bit from the article:
Undeniably, a strikingly higher number of people die with direct health care provider involvement in Canada’s euthanasia regime, euphemistically termed “Medical Assistance in Dying” [MAiD], than under a California-style assisted suicide system. Daryl Pullman rightly identifies several key reasons: the fact that in about all cases it involves a lethal injection by health care providers, rather than assisted-suicide with self-administration of medication; the law’s vague and broadly interpreted access criteria; “acquiescence and […] indifference of federal and provincial authorities, the courts, and medical associations”; and, briefly mentioned, the failure to treat ending of life as a last resort.
When I think of those incredibly emotional words, because they are incredibly emotional, I often wonder how we realistically got to a spot where we are in a culture of death and we believe in the ability to simply hand over our essence of life to a health care practitioner. How did we get there? How have we failed as a society to simply say, “Life is no longer worth living. Just go ahead and kill me.”
I can remember when the debates on this first began and everybody talked about the slippery slope argument, saying that we would never go down these roads and that this would simply be for those with a reasonably foreseeable natural death. Canadians, in their heart of hearts, because of who we are, really believed that the expansion of MAID would never happen. I have heard my colleagues in the House today speak a lot about how it is people's right to die. What about their right to live? Once again, this is a country that is incredibly developed with great riches and wealth. This is the golden age of Canada, if one were to use that term. How did we get to the point where it is not about caring about each other, but about saying, “Yes, I agree with you. Just go ahead and end it because your life is not worth living.”
As we begin to contemplate those things as a country, I do believe that it is incredibly important to value human life and to say that it is important. Are there folks out there who are suffering? There absolutely are, and I certainly will come back to that.
Before we talk about some very sad examples, the other important thing to talk about is the state of palliative care in Canada. I had the opportunity as a physician to witness an incredible change in how palliative care is delivered where I live in Nova Scotia. It was absolutely life-changing to have a driving force behind a palliative care program where I live that enabled care, which had historically been delivered by family physicians, to go to a quality team of palliative care providers that was able to provide a much more nuanced way for people to continue to live a life, even though it was difficult. I might be so bold as to say that my great friend Dr. David Henderson was the person leading that charge.
Historically, where I had the opportunity to work in our hospital in Truro, Nova Scotia, palliative care was provided by family physicians. Realizing that many symptoms during the end of life and the dying process were very difficult to control, this great physician, Dr. Henderson, came along and was able to begin to educate all of us family physicians who were delivering care to make us better providers. As time went on, many folks began to realize that they were not very good at palliative care, which not everybody is good at, if I can use that terminology. They also began to realize that there were certain skills, not just in determining which medications to give at which time but also in speaking to patients to understand what their goals and desires were. Was it that they simply wanted their pain and suffering to be alleviated at all costs, or did they want to be more functional in their abilities? Those are incredibly important conversations to have with patients.
Dr. Henderson also realized that delivering care at people's homes was an essential part of palliative care because, of course, folks often feel much better when they are able to stay in their own homes and have the distressing symptoms alleviated there. Dr. Henderson was a great advocate to say that we also needed to have nurses trained in palliative care who can then be the extenders of physician care at home or in the hospital. Dr. Henderson has been a wonderful advocate for the palliative care program in Nova Scotia and, indeed, across the country.
The sad state of affairs is that good-quality palliative care such as I have described does not exist across the country. I would suggest that colleagues here in the chamber give that a good thought because I do believe if good-quality palliative care existed across the country, perhaps some of the conversations we are having now would be quite different.
I also think it important that we understand that seven million Canadians do not have access to primary care. Of course, that does affect the quality of care overall in terms of how Canadians are able to manage symptoms of their illness and understand their illness, because of course in Canada, primary care is the way we access the system. Once again, the demise of our much-cherished health care system has certainly accelerated at the hands of the NDP-Liberal government over the last nine years.
As I mentioned, a recent report from CIHI lays out clearly that 5.4 million adults do not have access to primary care, which we know translates into about seven million Canadians without access. This means they are unable to get lab work, diagnostic imaging or referrals to specialists unless they are in walk-in clinics or they are visiting emergency rooms, which we know then creates an entire other type of problem.
Those things being said, I do want to get to some examples about MAID in particular. There are several quotes about MAID in Ontario. For example, PBS reports, “in Ontario, more than three quarters of people euthanized when their death wasn’t imminent required disability support before their death in 2023”. A professor of health in the Netherlands has stated, “Canada seems to be providing euthanasia for social reasons, when people don’t have the financial means, which would be a big taboo in Europe.”
We begin to again unpack those types of things. A report just this morning outlined that 40% of Atlantic Canadians have difficulty paying for the basic necessities of life. The article cited food, rent and home heating. That is a disturbing feature when we hear what the professor in the Netherlands said. Of course, the Netherlands has had a MAID regime for quite some time now.
The other statistic we need to be aware of is that it would seem poverty is a contributing factor in Ontario's MAID provision: “People in the lowest ‘material resource’ category represent 20 per cent of the general population, but they make up 28.4 per cent of Track 2 MAiD recipients, compared to 21.5 per cent of Track 1 recipients.” When we begin to understand some of these statistics, not to be foolish about it, but as we might say, “Houston, we have a problem.”
The impact of the housing crisis seems to be a factor. Persons identified as having housing instability made up 48.3% of track 2 MAID deaths in Ontario, an absolutely staggering figure. Isolation is also a definite factor in track 2 cases: Ninety per cent of track 1 MAID recipients provided the name of an immediate family member, spouse, sibling or child as their next of kin, compared to 73% of track 2 recipients. People who accessed MAID via track 2 safeguards were more likely to have provided the name of a friend, extended family member or other person, such as a caseworker, lawyer or health care provider.
As I started off my remarks with, here we are in this incredible country in which we live, and people are socially isolated. They are unable to afford housing and access services.
The other disturbing trend, of course, is the significant increase in MAID in Canada. In 2019, there were 5,631 cases of MAID reported in Canada, accounting for 2% of all deaths. The total number of deaths marked a 26% increase over the number of MAID deaths in 2018. In 2020, there were 7,595 cases of MAID reported in Canada, 2.5% of all deaths, and the toll represented an increase of 34.2% from the year prior.
In 2019, as I mentioned, 5631 cases of MAID were reported, and by 2022 there were 13,241 MAID deaths reported in Canada, accounting for 4.1% of all deaths nationwide. This is a year-over-year growth rate in the 30% range. The total number of medically assisted deaths reported in Canada since the introduction of the federal MAID legislation is 44,958 Canadians. It can therefore be projected that the number of MAID deaths, as well as the share of these deaths represented in the annual death toll, will increase in 2024 and may reach up to 5% of the national total of deaths.
As we begin to look at these things, we see that this is a very disturbing trend. I do want to quote a couple of disturbing cases that I think we all need to be aware of. They are readily available in open-source literature.
Christine Gauthier, a disabled veteran and former paralympian, was offered MAID by a caseworker from Veterans Affairs Canada during a phone call in which she discussed her deteriorating condition. Gauthier had for five years been seeking to get a wheelchair ramp in her house. As a veteran myself, this is particularly disturbing.
We know that there are other cases of veterans who called Veterans Affairs for help, simply for their mental health, and of course were offered MAID as part of what the individuals at Veterans Affairs thought was appropriate in terms of offering treatment to veterans. It is appalling that folks who sign on the dotted line to serve our country, to uphold our values elsewhere and potentially, of course, to put their lives on the line are offered death as opposed to help.
In another case, Normand Meunier, a former truck driver who had been paralyzed from a spinal cord injury in 2022, was forced to spend 95 hours on a stretcher after being admitted to a hospital in Saint-Jérôme, Quebec, with a respiratory virus in January 2024. This led him to develop a severe pressure sore that eventually worsened to the point where bone and muscle were exposed and visible. Mr. Meunier, in terrible pain for the ensuing two months, opted to end his life, and he passed away on March 29.
When we look at these stories, we see that they represent a failure of a health care system, as I quoted from a report, “when death becomes therapy”, as opposed to understanding that we need a health care system that is responsive to the changes that have been foisted upon us by the NDP-Liberal government.
I think it is also important to talk about the blue seal program for Canadians that the next Conservative government will put forward. It would allow international medical graduates to have their qualifications and experience recognized quickly as they come to this country and want to serve Canadians and to have a better paycheque in order to be able to look after their families as well.
That will be something, of course, that a Conservative government will be able to put forward, as we have had multiple discussions with the stakeholders and decision-makers at both provincial and national levels. I think it is incredibly important we give Canadians hope that there is help on the way and that the way things are is not the way they need to be forever. Change is possible.
We also know that understanding exactly how the MAID regime works is important on behalf of Canadians. Consultation needs to be had, and we need to be able to replace the hurt that Canadians, sadly, are now experiencing with hope for the future so they once again can be prosperous in the dream and the contract of being a Canadian: If we work hard, we will be able to achieve a job with a reasonable paycheque, put food on our table and a roof over our head, live in dignity in this country, and not have to worry about death being the therapy for all that ails us.
Medical Assistance in DyingCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, the member highlighted how important the issue is in terms of personal perspective, and I do not think anyone challenges that at all. In the debate on this subject over the last number of years, there have been all sorts of emotions on both sides of the issue. That is healthy for the public debate because I think it is a reflection of what Canadians are feeling on the issue.
The challenge I have for the Conservative Party is that even when the Supreme Court decision was made, it was not until the Liberals took government that tangible action actually started. There is now a commitment to have a national conversation on the next step; it is coming up in November and will go through to January. I am wondering whether the member could provide his thoughts regarding how important it is that we do have that national conversation, because the legislation should reflect Canadian values.
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Madam Speaker, obviously, engaging Canadians in what they think our future should look like is incredibly important. That being said, what we also know is that it is difficult to have an honest and open conversation when we know, sadly, that the systems under the NDP-Liberal government are failing Canadians. Mental health care, for instance, is not adequate in this country. I already talked at length about palliative care and the inadequate nature of it across the country. Once again, it would be inappropriate for me not to consider the lack of primary care for seven million Canadians across this country.
When we do not have appropriate systems that Canadians know and love and have come to rely upon, it is very difficult, because Canadians would suggest they do not have other options besides death—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
We need to get to other questions.
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague talks about death as therapy. Nearly 70% of people who die with medical assistance in Quebec do so in the context of cancer, in other words at the terminal phase of life, where the process of dying has started and is irreversible.
How can he talk about death as therapy in a context like that where people are already in palliative care?
I would like to know from this former doctor if he did what the law prescribed when a patient told him that they would like to exercise their freedom of choice and receive medical assistance in dying rather than die after suffering in agony.
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Madam Speaker, as I already said, it is always hard to say. The situation is always emotional. If the choices are not what we want here in Canada, for example when it comes to primary health care, that is a problem. There is also palliative care. If that is not offered in every province, like in the truly rural regions of Quebec, this will always be a problem. Patients who do not have access to palliative care have no real choice.
To me it is essential to have all the choices on the table so that a patient can make the right choice for himself.
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Madam Speaker, it is certainly very interesting, especially on a difficult subject such as this, when a chamber with all different perspectives on all different sides comes together to discuss such a topic. I disagree with many of the things the hon. member has said. However, he spoke at length about palliative care, and one of the recommendations of the report we are discussing today is recommendation 6, which talks about the increased funding for the implementation of the action plan on palliative care.
When the member talked about the demise of health care, it brought me to the idea of increasing the transfer payments that go to the provinces in relation to all health care. We know that with the Harper government there was a significant decrease in the transfer payments for health. They have not been renewed by the Liberal government, so I would ask the member about his commitment to the increasing of transfer payments to ensure that we do not experience the demise of our health care system.
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Madam Speaker, there were a few things there. This is a serious topic, but it is interesting how the long legacy of Mr. Harper lives in the heads of many in the NDP-Liberal party. That being said, I know very clearly that the Harper government increased the value of transfer payments to 6% on a year-over-year basis, which is more than any government had done previously. During a press conference, the Leader of the Opposition and I made it clear that we would honour commitments that have already been made to provinces.
The other interesting part of this is that there are many opportunities for the federal government to show leadership, which the NDP-Liberal government refuses to take, to get folks on board, such as with the blue seal program, which would allow international medical graduates with experience to apply their trade in our great country, providing a service to Canadians who desperately need it. I have mentioned many times that seven million Canadians do not have access to primary care under the failed NDP-Liberal government.
Then, of course, there is the ability to get the appropriate stakeholders and decision-makers together to support the provinces so they can unfold the mandate that is so essential to what they are trying to do.
It is a shame that the New Democrats continue to prop up the Liberal government. They say the house is burning down, but they are Nero on the wall playing the fiddle.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the knowledge he brings to this debate.
I want to ask him about the recruitment of doctors and health care professionals and their participation in the MAID regime. In my life, I know several people who used to work in the health care field and have now moved out of that field because of concerns about their conscience rights. We have seen entire hospices get shut down across this country because they are unwilling to participate. I do not think this was the intended consequence of the bill.
I am wondering if the member has any comments about that.
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Madam Speaker, this is interesting. I have the exact statistics somewhere in my mound of paperwork on this particular topic, but it would appear that year over year, in Canada, many more physicians are participating in the MAID regime. It is a sad reflection on society that those physicians could easily be trained to provide better palliative care. We know there is a call for patients across the country to receive appropriate palliative care.
Many folks in the chamber may think of palliative care as simply giving people more medication to end their physical pain. However, we know clearly from those who provide good-quality palliative care that it is about having conversations with families, partly about providing medication, talking about the lives they have had and talking about the difficulties they may have suffered. It is also very clearly, with its patient-centred approach, about what their goals of care are and how to meet those needs.
That often takes a very specialized team of people. However, if we look at the number of physicians choosing to provide MAID who are not providing palliative care, there is an obvious ability to recruit those physicians, in the appropriate circumstances, to provide good-quality palliative care for folks who are not able to receive it. Again, this exists in many rural and remote places across Canada. It is a real travesty when that situation exists.
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country. I will be splitting my time.
I rise to speak in a concurrence debate that was put forth today regarding the report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, MAID. Conservatives have put forth a dissenting report on this. I will speak from the perspective of the shadow minister for disability inclusion and will speak to the impending Liberal government law on MAID eligibility, coming into effect after the next election, which will include mental illness as a sole underlying condition.
The Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying heard from a range of experts regarding MAID, including clinicians, psychiatrists, disability advocates and mental health experts. Many expressed the same concern regarding including mental health as the sole underlying condition for MAID eligibility. Many experts are saying it is impossible to clinically determine if a patient will be able to recover from a mental health challenge. Dr. John Maher, a clinical psychologist and medical ethicist, told the committee, “Psychiatrists don't know and can't know who will get better and live decades of good life. Brain diseases are not liver diseases.”
Abandoning people with mental illness to turn instead to medical assistance in dying is wrong, and experts in the field agree. The Ontario Medical Association surveyed Ontario psychiatrists in 2021 and found that 91% of respondents opposed the expansion of MAID for mental illness. Only 2% of respondents supported it. This speaks volumes to how wrong the Liberal government is on this issue.
Disability groups are now sounding the alarm over the drastic negative effects MAID can have on those with disabilities and concerns over looking after the most vulnerable. Recently, the Disability Rights Coalition put out a release detailing how those with disabilities are affected by MAID. This coalition includes major disability advocacy organizations, including the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, Inclusion Canada, Indigenous Disability Canada and DAWN Canada, among others. These are organizations whose missions are to support the vulnerable, and we need to consider their concerns.
In a release, the Disability Rights Coalition stated, “MAID has resulted in premature deaths and an increase in discrimination and stigma towards people with disabilities across the country.” Krista Carr, the executive vice president of Inclusion Canada, stated, “We are witnessing an alarming trend where people with disabilities are seeking assisted suicide due to social deprivation, poverty, and lack of essential supports”. Heather Walkus, the national chairperson of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, stated, “Instead of providing the support and resources we need to live, our government is offering death.”
This release comes after a letter was sent to the justice minister in 2022, signed by 50 disability organizations that called for the expansion of MAID for mental illness to be stopped. In this letter, the signatory stated, “To legalize MAiD for mental illness would pour gas on a fire that is already out of control.”
How can we trust the Liberal government with expanding MAID to include those with the sole underlying condition of mental illness when its record on this issue has been so troubling? There have been numerous reports detailing the increasing prevalence of Canadians seeking MAID for circumstances for which it was never intended. Multiple Canadian military veterans who fought for our country and were seeking help from Veterans Affairs were pressured by Veterans Affairs staff to consider medically assisted dying. One veteran, a Paralympian trying to get a wheelchair ramp, testified that a Veterans Affairs employee offered her assisted dying instead of addressing her concerns. A food bank manager from Mississauga reported that clients asked about assisted suicide without a special physical illness. We also heard testimony at the human resources committee from witnesses who were talking about persons with disabilities considering MAID due to the cost of living.
Most recently, CTV reported on a woman who has health conditions making her unable to work, and she applied for MAID for financial reasons. The editorial states:
“I'm very happy to be alive. I still enjoy life. Birds chirping, small things that make up a day are still pleasant to me, they're still enjoyable. I still enjoy my friends,” she said.
“There's a lot to enjoy in life, even if it's small.”
This is where we are in Canada after nine years of the Liberal government. We have all these issues, yet the government continues, undeterred, in proceeding with expanding MAID for those whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. Experts in mental illness and those who support and advocate for persons with disabilities have come out against this, citing concerns for abuse and concerns over protecting the most vulnerable.
I have been very touched by some of the correspondence from residents in Kelowna—Lake Country who have shared their concerns with me. Judith, from my community, wrote to me with her concerns after hearing about the delay in the planned expansion of MAID for those with mental illness as the sole underlying cause. She acknowledged that many people have brought forth many concerns to the government, and she was surprised that the Liberals were now delaying the expansion and not stopping it altogether.
Not every community has the same mental health services, especially in rural and remote areas. I previously spoke to a young woman who was movably shaken by the thought of medical assistance in dying being made available to individuals whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. His deceased mother had struggled with mental illness, and he was extremely angry to hear that the Liberal government had not cancelled outright the option for people to seek MAID under these parameters.
People were rightly concerned about protecting the most vulnerable in our society. It is because of this that the reckless expansion was paused, but it was not halted and stopped altogether. The public outcry and concern are what forced the government to take the first step on the MAID delay for people with the single underlying cause of mental illness. Unfortunately, the pause in this expansion is only that, a pause.
Parliament would be better served in our responsibility to Canadians, particularly vulnerable Canadians, to altogether abandon the expansion of MAID to those with mental illness as the sole underlying condition. We cannot give up on people experiencing mental illness. We must ensure that support is there for help and treatment.
I do not want to give up on people. There are so many people in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country who suffer from a mental health issue, and it is heartbreaking to think that the government's solution to these issues is offering assisted death. It is the government giving up on those experiencing mental illness.
We must focus on giving people help and hope. We must focus on treatment for mental illness rather than assisted death. The Conservatives do not want to give up on people. Medical assistance in dying cannot be the most accessible solution for individuals with mental illness or for those seeking palliative care that may either not exist or be very limited in the community where someone lives. There are multiple recommendations with respect to palliative care and persons with disabilities in the joint committee's report we are discussing today.
Also, instead of bringing forth changes to expand MAID to persons with mental illness, the Liberals should be focusing on proposals to bolster mental health support for Canadians, many of whom are facing challenges given the last nine years of the Liberal government, which has made life so hard for so many. We have to remember that it was the Conservative member for Cariboo—Prince George who spearheaded the three-digit suicide prevention hotline, 988, in Canada.
As I mentioned, the Liberals did not bring in legislation to cancel the implementation of MAID for those with the sole underlying condition of mental illness; they just delayed it. Instead of these misplaced Liberal policies, building the mental health support systems that Canadians need to live full, fulfilling lives should be the top priority. This is a top priority for the Conservatives in this Parliament and in a future Conservative government.
People suffering from mental health issues need resources to help them. Recovery is possible, and we must never give up hope on anyone. The Conservatives will always stand on the side of the most vulnerable, their loved ones and those who support them.
Medical Assistance in DyingCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I commented on how important the issue was when I spoke to it. Having said that, I also commented on how the Conservative Party was filibustering to prevent debate on a wide spectrum of issues. I want to give the member the opportunity to comment as to why the Conservatives do not want legislation to come forward. If the member does not want to answer, then she can continue with her remarks on this issue, which no doubt is an important issue.
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Madam Speaker, we are discussing a report from an important committee today. A lot of what I spoke about was not in reference to legislation in front of us now or legislation that the Liberals were looking to bring forward. I was speaking about legislation in the past and the fact that the Liberals delayed the implementation of MAID being available to persons suffering from the sole underlying condition of mental illness. As part of that, many persons from the disability community and advocates have come out against this.
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Salaberry—Suroît, QC
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I imagine she has read the report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying.
The committee is made up of parliamentarians from all parties in the House as well as senators. In recommendation 13, all committee members agreed that we were not ready to make a decision on extending MAID to people whose sole medical condition is mental illness. The committee's recommendation was to continue consultations with experts and to continue the committee's work.
Does this recommendation reassure her, since she will have the opportunity to give this further thought with all the parliamentarians and senators on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying?
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Madam Speaker, it is really important to listen to Canadians, especially those serving the most vulnerable of Canadians. Unfortunately, the government did not listen at the outset and delayed the implementation of MAID being available to persons suffering from the sole underlying condition of mental illness.
It is really important that we continue to listen to Canadians who have very strong concerns about this and, in particular, people from within the disability community who have put forth very strong issues and concerns about this as well.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Madam Speaker, what we have seen from the Liberal government is a total disregard and disrespect for the rights of persons with disabilities. A former justice minister failed to appeal a lower court ruling, ignoring every disability rights community that said removing the safeguard that death be reasonably foreseeable would result in persons with disabilities falling through the cracks. Now we have seen, since the government removed that safeguard, that this is precisely what has happened.
Could the member speak to that?
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his diligent work on this topic. It is incredibly important that we listen to people with lived experience and those serving, supporting and advocating for persons with disabilities, because they are on the front lines. They know what the very important issues are, and they are the ones bringing forward the issues that really need to be addressed. We need to ensure we are protecting the most vulnerable people in our society and in Canada.
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Salaberry—Suroît, QC
Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of emotion that I rise today to speak to this report. We are talking about it because advance requests for MAID are a topical issue in Quebec, which implemented its legislation yesterday. It was a big day. It took a year for the act to pass, and it came into force this week.
This is a great day for Quebeckers. From now on, people diagnosed with an incurable, neurodegenerative disease will be eligible to submit advance requests. Obviously, they are under no obligation to make a request, but the option is theirs. They are free to state their wishes after being diagnosed with a disease that would eventually rob them of any ability to make decisions as they become incapacitated.
All day long, I have been listening to speeches questioning the idea of medical assistance in dying. I felt like I had gone back in time. We have already had this debate, and even though it is not over for some people, patients can now request MAID anywhere in Quebec and Canada. In Quebec, we had a fairly broad and lengthy public debate. I think we are ahead of the curve when it comes to discussing this in our society.
Medical assistance in dying is not an end in itself. A Quebecker who receives a diagnosis and requests MAID has a number of choices available to them. They can decide to request palliative care, palliative sedation or a lethal injection that allows them to choose when they will die. This debate has been quite clear in Quebec for the past 10 years or so. We are quite advanced in our approach to this freedom of choice, this freedom to make an informed decision, with the support of a professional team, about leaving this earth for the great beyond, if I may use that expression.
My colleague from Montcalm, whom I greatly admire for his expertise, diligence and professionalism, explained to us in his speech that a joint committee was established in 2021 following legal decisions by a court asking us to reflect on this issue. A committee was struck, consisting of members from all the parties, including the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the NDP, as well as senators. Honestly, I would say that they did monumental work. For nearly two years, they heard witnesses from Quebec and other provinces, and from international experts; all of them, either for or against, shared what they knew. The breadth of everything they were able to learn and understand is impressive.
As a parliamentarian, I value the work that has been done. It has not always been easy, because this is a sensitive issue. Advance requests and the other points we agreed to study are not easy topics. It was often emotional, given that it involves personal values. This led to some good discussions. In the end, the committee members agreed on some of the many recommendations, and I should repeat that there were Conservative members on the committee. They agreed on two recommendations that I would like to read, because it appears that, somewhere along the way, we have forgotten what we are debating today. On the Bloc Québécois side, we wonder why, despite an exhaustive, professional and very rigorous study, the government is not taking note of the report, particularly recommendations 21 and 22, which deal specifically with advance requests.
Recommendation 21 states, “That the Government of Canada amend the Criminal Code to allow for advance requests following a diagnosis of a serious and incurable medical condition disease, or disorder leading to incapacity.”
Recommendation 22 states, “That the Government of Canada work with provinces and territories, regulatory authorities, provincial and territorial law societies and stakeholders to adopt the necessary safeguards for advance requests.”
These are two great recommendations that, in 2023, urged the government to get to work because the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying had reached a consensus.
The government did nothing. It dragged its feet on this very important component of medical assistance in dying, knowing full well that Quebec would legislate and that a law would come into force in Quebec. We knew we would find ourselves in the position that we are in today. A province has taken the time to think things through and to pass legislation that reflects what Quebeckers want. However, the federal government ignored that legislation, shelved the report and failed to put any effort whatsoever into determining how it should move forward with the entire debate on advance requests, given that Quebec has its own law.
Now, we are in a situation where doctors have the right to offer medical assistance in dying to people who make an advance request. Some will likely do so. However, others will still be afraid to provide this care, and that is what worries us. I would encourage the government to get to work as quickly as possible.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until later this day at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Madam Speaker, it is a huge privilege today to table petition e-5144, which was signed by 3,444 people from across Canada.
These petitioners cite that Canadians care deeply about the health of the ocean and depend on thriving ocean ecosystems. They say that the cruise ship industry, which we know is important to the economy, is growing quickly and setting new records, year over year, for passengers travelling from and through the west coast of Canada to Alaska. These cruise ships generate significant amounts of pollutants that are harmful to human health, aquatic organisms and coastal ecosystems.
They say that Canada's regulations under the Canada Shipping Act addressing the discharge of sewage and grey water are less stringent than those in the U.S. Pacific coastal states. Canada has brought an interim order to address this discrepancy, but significant loopholes undermine its effectiveness and put ecosystems and food harvesting areas like that in Baynes Sound and the Salish Sea, and communities—