Debates of Oct. 31st, 2024

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to three petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Veterans' Week

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, as we approach Veterans' Week and Remembrance Day, I stand before the House a very grateful Canadian. We come together to recognize the remarkable Canadians who have served and proudly worn the maple leaf on their shoulders, including some of my colleagues here in this place today. This upcoming week is not only an opportunity to commemorate their sacrifice, but a chance for all Canadians, young and old, to reflect on the freedoms and rights we enjoy today thanks to the service of these brave individuals.

Every year, especially in November, people across the country gather to pay tribute to those who have served or are still serving Canada. From the hills of Beaumont-Hamel to the Persian Gulf and the skies above it, from the mountains of Afghanistan to places right here at home, our veterans have demonstrated unwavering courage and resilience. Their stories remind us of their strength and the profound impact of their service.

This week, as we close Women's History Month, I am thinking of women veterans and what so many of them have had to overcome in the service of our country. Over the past year, I have had the privilege to meet many of these women, who have shared moments with me of their time in the military. They have shared stories of pride in service, of hardship and of how they fought and continue to fight through it all.

Although women only began to serve in combat roles during the Persian Gulf War, the legacy of their service to Canada is much longer: as nursing sisters during the First World War, as decoders and “Wrens” during the Second World War, and, to fast-forward to today, as captains leading combat missions, flying squadrons and even leading the entire forces as the chief of the defence staff. I encourage all Canadians to learn more about them.

This year also marks the 60th anniversary of Canadian peacekeepers joining the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus, and the 50th anniversary of the 1974 war, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. As we mark this anniversary, I am thinking of the group of veterans who are preparing to return to Cyprus to rekindle memories with their fellow service members and to share this history with Canadians. I am reflecting on the service of the 36,000 Canadians who participated in Operation Snowgoose, and those who remain there today in what is one of Canada's longest overseas military commitments.

Many veterans continue to live with physical and psychological scarring from their time in Cyprus and in other operations around the world. We cannot ignore the heavy toll service takes on the men and women, and also their families, who sign up to serve no matter the risk. This Veterans' Week, I ask each of us to pause and reflect on what service means to us.

This Veterans' Week, I encourage all Canadians to participate in local activities, volunteer their time and reach out to veterans in their community. Simple acts of kindness, such as a conversation, a shared meal or even a friendly ear, can go a long way.

We have a collective responsibility to educate future generations about RCMP and CAF veterans and their families. By sharing the stories of those who served and what they gained from their experiences, we foster gratitude, pass on history and, most importantly, leave them with lessons that have endured for more than 100 years. As the air force motto says, “Through adversity to the stars”.

Let us also take the time to recognize the contributions and sacrifices of equity-deserving veterans, such as indigenous and 2SLGBTQI+ veterans, as well as those of people who have served in non-combat roles. I have met so many veterans from these groups over the past year, and all of them are very proud of their military careers and their contributions to maintaining peace and security around the world.

This Veterans' Week, let us be united in a common goal to be there for veterans and their family members. Above all, let us make sure they know and that Canadians know how much we value their service and contributions to our country. Together, we will never, ever forget their sacrifices.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I, along with a full delegation of Canadians, recently visited Normandy, France, to commemorate the 80th anniversary of D-Day. I had the honour of standing on Juno Beach with some of the heroes who stormed that beach on June 6, 1944. They were the heroes who saved the world.

Those brave young Canadians who stormed the beaches of Normandy 80 years ago were the greatest generation. One of those heroes was 102-year-old Charles Davis of Windsor, Ontario, who arrived in Normandy on D-Day plus four and was part of the campaign inland as Canadians and our allies liberated Normandy from the Nazi invaders.

Canada is home to many such heroes, heroes who endured conditions unimaginable to most of us. They are heroes like Samuel Sharpe, then a Conservative member of Parliament who rose up a battalion from his riding and led them in Europe during the First World War. They are heroes like Lloyd Hamilton, a Métis soldier who once acted to save 80 Korean children from an orphanage during the Korean War. They are heroes like Nicole Langlois, who was part of the first deployment of female soldiers in a frontline role. They are heroes like Rick Mohr, whose surviving family was the first to receive a Memorial Cross awarded to a Persian Gulf veteran related to illness linked to his service. They are heroes like Jess Larochelle, whose courage while severely wounded in Afghanistan saved many of his fellow soldiers. Although awarded the Star of Military Valour, Jess tragically left us last year before ever seeing his government recognize him with the Victoria Cross that many feel he deserved.

They are heroes like the 66,000 Canadians who laid down their lives during the First World War. They are heroes like the 44,000 who made the ultimate sacrifice in the Second World War, the 516 who gave their lives in Korea and the 158 Canadian Armed Forces members who lost their lives in Afghanistan.

Let us never forget that these are not just numbers or statistics. They represent real people who laid down their lives for our freedoms. They were young men and women who had hopes and dreams that will forever go unrealized.

They did it for all of us, so that we could continue to live in freedom. They did it voluntarily, in the ultimate act of courage and sacrifice. It is a debt we can never repay.

In much the same way, there is never enough that we can do or say to thank those who served the country and came back forever changed. Whether their injuries are physical or psychological, they leave deep scars, often having a lasting impact on their relationships, on their families and on their futures. We owe it to them to ensure that what they fought for is never taken for granted.

We pay tribute to their loyal service and sacrifice. It is a great honour for me to be here today to express to them, on behalf of the leader of the official opposition, all common-sense Conservatives and all Canadians, our gratitude, our admiration and our deep respect, and to promise them that we will always be there for them, as they have been there for us.

My wife Carmen and I recently welcomed our little baby daughter Jade into the world, and when I think about the Canada that I want her to grow up in, it is one where we have heroes like Charles, Samuel, Lloyd, Nicole, Rick and Jess defending our freedoms and values. It is the Canada that tens of thousands who made the ultimate sacrifice gave their lives for. It is the one where those heroes and their families get the respect and appreciation they deserve, because the freedom for which they spilled their blood, the democracy for which they suffered and the sovereignty for which they died are not the property of this generation to surrender.

Let us all teach our children, as we will teach Jade, about these heroes and their bravery, about the constant battle of good versus evil, about freedom over tyranny. If we ask those veterans to tell us the single most important thing we could do to repay them, I know they would all say the same thing: to never take for granted that which they fought for, our freedoms.

Please join me and my colleagues, Canada's common-sense Conservatives, in making that commitment today. We pledge to uphold those freedoms. It is how we will honour their memories, thank them for their service and show our respect for their sacrifice. Freedom came at all costs, and at all costs we must ensure it is maintained.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for granting me the right to speak, which I consider extremely important, especially in light of the current international situation. Today's global geopolitical climate is fraught with tension among the major nations of our planet, among our major powers, and various conflicts are unfolding on a global scale.

War is not limited to the 1914-18 war, the 1939-45 war or the Korean War. It encompasses a host of conflicts that are making headlines in our daily newspapers and opening our eyes to concerns of global or planetary proportions. In this context, the significance of November 11, Armistice Day, becomes very real. As I see it, this day carries an even more important and powerful message about the need to educate the younger generations about the consequences of war and the importance of peace.

Remembrance Day is a time to commemorate the victorious end of World War I, but above all to remind ourselves of the value of peace. Over the years, the day has also become an opportunity to show our immense gratitude to those who manned the front to defend our liberty, our democracy and our peace, and who paid the ultimate price, sacrificing body, mind and soul.

We must also pause to acknowledge and thank veterans of all wars, not only the two world wars and the Korean War. I am referring to the operations in Cyprus, the conflicts in Rwanda and Bosnia-Herzegovina and the war in Afghanistan, not to mention the Somme, Pas-de-Calais, Vimy, Dieppe, Hill 355, Sarajevo, Kabul, I could go on.

In all of these battles, soldiers from Quebec fought under the Canadian flag. Women and men exhibited unstinting bravery and dedication in some of the most difficult and complex circumstances imaginable. The sacrifices these military personnel made earn them equal recognition to those who fought in other major wars, by which I mean the First World War of 1914 to 1918, the Second World War of 1939 to 1945 and the Korean War.

In fact, for a Quebec sovereignist such as myself, this commemoration uniting 54 countries of the British Commonwealth is a chance to recall that our national project builds on the values defended by these heroes and on the ironclad solidarity we maintain with our historical allies. We have countless reasons to be proud of their acts of bravery. I think it is essential and our duty to promote the values of reconciliation and solidarity.

Wearing the poppy over the heart from the beginning of Veterans' Week until Remembrance Day may be a small gesture, but the symbolism behind it could not be larger. In doing so we proudly recognize the value of peace and recall the sacrifices they made for us and for our democracy.

This great ritual dates back to the armistice of 1918, with the cessation of hostilities on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month marking the end of 1,651 days of total war that left over nine million dead and unaccounted for. More recently, the ritual has broadened to include the veterans of all wars. Today I invite all parliamentarians to take a few minutes to reflect on the significance of this day, on the significance of peace and on the consequences of these wars.

We shall remember them.

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

Madam Speaker, as the NDP critic for Veterans Affairs, I am honoured to work with many veterans, who have served our country bravely and who endure many challenges once they enter civilian life. I want to acknowledge that, as we walk into the week of remembering veterans, I have stood by many graves, both in our country and other countries, and read many of those names. They are the people who made the ultimate sacrifice. One of the most painful moments is when we see those who were not named and we know there is a family that still does not know where their loved one is. Today, in this place, we hold their memory up in remembrance.

Veterans tell me that recognition of their sacrifices, and those of their family members, means so much to them. Therefore, it is my honour today to stand in this place and recognize the Canadians who serve in the military, past, present and future, to remember those who lost their lives in the line of duty and to show respect for those who continue to serve in war, in peace and in protection of our rights and freedoms.

The cost of war is high. There is far too much conflict in our world right now. We continue to send Canadians into danger, be it going on peacekeeping missions, going to areas of international violence or helping at home to fight forest fires and pandemics. It is how we support the military members when they return home after their service that confirms our act of remembrance, our promise to take care of them. This is so important. Canada must stop failing to uphold this promise. Commemoration of military service is not only about building monuments or holding ceremonies on remembrance days. It includes those things, but it also means much more to veterans. Nevertheless, many Canadian veterans do not feel well supported.

Indigenous veterans who fought bravely for Canada in the 20th century were stripped of their status when they returned home, facing poverty, inability to go home to their communities and racist attitudes. They were really dismissed, even though they provided the greatest service to Canada. Today, Canadian indigenous veterans continue to work towards the acknowledgement of that and of their current service. They continue to tell the stories of their heroism and leadership, lifting up a history that Canada has too often forgotten.

In the eighties and nineties, 2SLGBTQ+ veterans were purged from service because of an oppressive policy of heteronormalization. A terrible historical wrong was done to thousands of Canadians, who were victimized solely because of their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

Persian Gulf veterans are still fighting for the government to recognize them for having served in a war so that they can receive the same benefits as those who came before them.

I think of the women veterans who fought for their country in equipment that did not fit and suffered horrendous injuries to their body and their reproductive system. They had to endure sexist attacks, with huge impacts on their mental health, as well as verbal and physical attacks from their colleagues and commanders; they had no recourse to justice. Those women are still fighting. This time, they are fighting their government for their rights and benefits. I am so honoured to know them. They are fierce, and they will not stop. That is what bravery looks like.

It is incredibly tragic to consider that women veterans face dangers not just from deployments but also from within the military, because of archaic and sexist attitudes. They were made to feel invisible and were often mistaken for the wives of the military instead of being recognized for their service. I say to the women veterans of Canada that I see them, I hear them and the New Democrats support them. They are no longer invisible.

There are many veterans who need trauma-informed care and support. When they contact Veterans Affairs for help, they are forced to deal with an overly bureaucratic and complex system. They are threatened with removal from programs if deadlines are not met; moreover, they experience multiple denials of service attribution and endless delays in receiving benefits. Sometimes, years go by and veterans receive nothing. My office has helped one such veteran who lived for four years without an income, even though he was entitled to receive one from the government. A member of Parliament should not have to intervene for a veteran to receive his diminished earning capacity pay.

The system of benefits of Veterans Affairs must be transformed to offer services through a lens of trauma-informed care. It is so important that the veterans of this country be recognized.

In closing, I just want to say that it is important to Canadians that veterans are acknowledged and remembered. Let us normalize thanking them, not just during Veterans' Week and Remembrance Day, but each and every time we see a person who is currently serving or has served. That is the very least we can do to acknowledge their service.

Lest we forget.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to add my statement on behalf of the Green Party of Canada. I think we are united in this place, and I echo the words of all my colleagues.

I agree with what members of all parties have said this morning. We are all on the same page. We will remember.

We will never forget—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before the hon. member continues, I need to ask for unanimous consent from the House.

The hon. member seeks unanimous consent to give a speech on Veterans' Week. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, I am grateful to my colleagues for granting unanimous consent for me to speak on the subject of Remembrance Day and Veterans' Week.

I want to speak briefly. I certainly echo the words of all my colleagues, particularly the very detailed enumeration of the number of wrongs done to our veterans. I offer a huge thanks to all past members of the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as those currently serving in uniform for Canada, of course.

I just want to reflect very personally. As we gather every November 11 at a cenotaph in our local community, we all notice the missing. As the years go by, there are veterans who are increasingly frail and slip off this mortal coil. In the last year, we lost two such heroes. It was a little more than a year for Charles “Chic” Goodman. In my community of Sydney on Vancouver Island, we know of the heroism of Chic Goodman as one of those Canadian soldiers who helped liberate the Netherlands and who helped liberate people who had been held in Nazi death camps.

We think of Peter Godwin Chance, a hero of many campaigns, who died this year at 103. Every year, including November 11, 2023, he stood unaided, making his way to the cenotaph while carrying a wreath. As we think of these veterans, we remember members of our own family. My husband's father, Kendal Kidder served in North Africa, Sicily and Italy; he was in command of one of the landing crafts at Normandy on D-Day. My closest friend, Farley Mowat, served in Italy.

We used to be able to hear the stories of these people and hear what it was like for them. In many cases, they were not young men as soldiers; they were boys. I think of the words of Joyce Meyer, who said, “Courage...is fear that has said its prayers and decided to go forward anyway”.

There was tremendous courage, but there were also very young men, boys really. In every war, they go forward and they die. We must do everything we can to recommit ourselves to respecting their service, to ensuring their care, to ensuring that they know our gratitude and to ensuring that we cease sending young people into war. I know the word “fight” might not sound right in this context, but we must fight for peace.

We will never forget. As Canadians, we will always work to protect peace.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

On behalf of us all, I would like to add that it is very important to recognize Veterans' Week.

There are many military personnel, brave men and women who have served our country; let us not forget the people at DND, as well as the legion members, who do so much during Veterans' Week to raise awareness about this. I just also want to thank the ones in my area of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, who do so much, as well as those throughout Canada.

I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statements, Government Orders will be extended by 24 minutes.

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I move that the second report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, presented on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, be concurred in.

Today, I am starting off the debate on the report on medical assistance in dying that was presented in February 2023. It is entitled “Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada: Choices for Canadians” and was presented by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, which was struck in May 2021. The report was presented a year and a half ago. I am bringing this debate back to the House because, as reported in the news, Quebec began authorizing advance requests for people with degenerative and incapacitating diseases yesterday. The answers the Prime Minister gave us yesterday suggest to me that he does not understand the issues at all and has not given them any thought since May 2021. That is unacceptable to people who are suffering.

Today, I would like to take a moment to remember all those we have lost, as well as those who are currently disappearing into the abyss of dementia. They are slowly but surely and irreversibly becoming prisoners of time, of each moment that fades away as it is lived. The present moment is gradually erasing the people they once were, and they are losing contact with the things that gave their existence meaning, things like joy, sorrow, the ability to have relate to others and share their experiences, consciousness, and the ability to make others happy and plan for the future. This terrible disease is robbing them of all the things that make life what it is, that make up the experience of life, the human experience, until their life is reduced to a mere biological process. They are irreversibly losing their physical, social, mental and moral autonomy, in every sense of the word.

Wherever you are right now, I am thinking about you, Mom.

I am also thinking about Sandra Demontigny, who is suffering from early-onset dementia. She is fighting for patients who have this debilitating, incurable, incapacitating disease to have the right to self-determination. She is fighting for them to have the right to make an advance request for MAID after being diagnosed. People with dementia want to live as long as possible. They do not want to shorten their lives by requesting MAID while they are still mentally competent. They want to be able to receive it once they have become incapacitated, once they have reached their limit. They are seeking assurance that we will have the compassion needed to respect their final wishes. Fortunately, Quebec decided not to wait for the federal government to wake up. It passed a law, which took effect yesterday, that allows people to make an advance request.

I commend Sandra Demontigny for her courage, her determination and her efforts to assert patients' right to self-determination. That is what we are talking about. The principle of lifelong self-determination is enshrined in law. No one can violate a person's integrity. That being the case, why, at the most intimate moment of a person's life, the moment of their death, should the government get to decide what is best for them? I would remind my colleagues that the government's job is not to decide what is best for a patient. The government's job is to create conditions that are conducive to making free and informed choices. People need to be free to make their own choices.

The Liberals champion the freedom to choose when it comes to abortion, when it comes to a woman's right to control her own body, so how they can question a patient's prerogative to exercise their right to self-determination in a decision as personal as that of their own death? The Liberals are dithering and are still hesitant to amend the Criminal Code to make advance requests legal. The Prime Minister said yesterday that it was a deeply personal decision. If he recognizes that, why can he not put some substance behind his statement? I think I have demonstrated that this is indeed a deeply personal decision.

Why shelve the report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying? Why set up joint committees made up of senators and elected representatives, ask them to come up with a key recommendation, and then shelve their report? The committee even managed to convince a Quebec Conservative who agreed with these proposals. The government is finally waking up a year and a half later because it was waiting to see what Quebec would do. The government took a wait-and-see approach so it could see how Quebec would proceed. It was a good idea to look at the example of Quebec, which took a unanimous non-partisan approach. Ottawa could learn something from what happened in Quebec's parliament, which spoke with one voice.

The government is now refusing to amend the Criminal Code, even though we have made it easy to do so. The government is not the one that has been doing the work since 2021, or for the past year and a half. The Quebec National Assembly passed the Act Respecting End-of-Life Care on June 7, 2023. It is now November 2024, and this government is telling us that it needs to have conversations. Who does the government want to have those conversations with? We heard from many experts, groups and citizens. We received many briefs. Despite all that, the government feels it must continue to wait, wait until people are suffering.

The committee report states the following, and I quote:

...Sandra Demontigny eloquently and movingly shared with the committee the sense of peace that advance requests might provide in situations like hers...

These people can feel more at ease dealing with the challenges before them when they are safe in the knowledge that, once they have reached their limit of suffering, we will take care of them and respect their final wishes. That is what we call basic humanity.

Here is what Sandra Demontigny had to say, and I quote:

I am working to calm my vanishing brain and my troubled heart. I feel a need to be reassured about my future so that I can do a better job of living out my remaining days and coping with the more frequent trials I will be experiencing.

My plan is to make the most of my final years while life is still good, with a free mind and without fear.

If those words fail to strike a chord with members here, those members must be heartless and lacking compassion, perhaps because of sweeping ideological principles that they are not putting on the table.

This prompted the committee to say that the Carter decision needed to be respected. Under Carter, the government must not violate sick people's right to life with legislation that would force them to shorten their lives. We saw this in Carter, and it was reiterated in the Beaudoin decision. These people do not want to commit suicide.

That is what Sandra Demontigny told us. She said that she wanted to make the most of the years she has left, knowing that when she reaches her limit of suffering, she will be taken care of and will not have to go through the same appalling decline as her father. Until that moment comes, she wants to live. She does not want to commit suicide.

Is that clear? Who is more vulnerable than a person making this heartfelt plea?

When people say they want to strike a balance between preserving the autonomy of self-determination and protecting the most vulnerable, unless they have fallen down the rabbit hole of believing that everyone in the health care system is evil, it is impossible not to hear this plea.

Why is the government applying a double standard? This report was tabled in February 2023. The government ignored the key recommendation, but, because Bill C‑7 contained a Senate amendment regarding mental disorders and a deadline, the government did accept the committee's recommendation to take another look at the issue after experts had studied it for a year. The government then recommended waiting, because it does not believe that the entire country is ready for this. It accepted the recommendation and applied it, and the result was Bill C‑62. However, in the past year and a half, no bills have been drafted based on the committee's key recommendation on advance requests. If that is not an example of lacking courage and shirking responsibility, I do not know what is.

The minister is unable to understand that an advance request cannot take effect until a diagnosis has been made. It has been six months since the Quebec law was passed. I do not know what world I am living in. This is certainly not a sign of competence. He clearly finds the issue complex because he keeps inventing problems that should not exist.

We are not only criticizing. We went so far as to table a bill. Bill C‑390 offers the government a solution, because we are in suggestion mode, not just in opposition mode. This bill allows the provinces to pass their own legislation once they have debated the issue. Quebec has been juggling this issue, reflecting on MAID and doing something about it since 2009. Now, in 2024, it can start accepting advance requests. There is a law in Quebec. We have adopted a legislative framework. If the federal government thinks advance requests are too complicated, maybe it should look at Bill C‑390, which says it should go at the provinces' and legislative assemblies' pace. This is a debate that should be undertaken by each legislative assembly, by citizens and their representatives. Once they have debated the issue and established a legislative framework, they will then be able to accept advance requests for MAID. That is a very reasonable suggestion.

This is not preferential treatment for Quebec. It is an additional safeguard for the government. The idea is to amend the Criminal Code to simply say that, once a legislative assembly, a province, has adopted a legislative framework and a law, it can move ahead.

The administration of care is a matter for the provinces. End-of-life care is a matter for the provinces. The Criminal Code is a federal statute, and the federal government does not need to describe how things should be done. Furthermore, we are setting an example for all the other provinces. According to every poll conducted over the past three years, 83% to 85% of Canadians support advance requests, so I have to wonder where the political risk is. I feel like this government is afraid of its own shadow. It lacks the courage of its convictions, assuming it even has any convictions left.

I thought that freedom to choose was a cardinal Liberal Party belief that set it apart from the Conservatives, but no. I can criticize the Conservatives, but I will say one thing about them: We know where they stand and why, so we are able to position ourselves accordingly. As for the Liberals, there is no way of knowing what they think. They are dilettantes.

How can they be so unconcerned when it comes to an issue like this, an issue of human suffering? What are the Liberals waiting for? I can answer that question. What were the Conservatives waiting for in 2015, when the Carter decision forced Parliament to take a stand and an extension had to be sought? This Parliament has never been able to deal with the MAID issue except under a court injunction. The court had to order the government to change the law and the Criminal Code. Parliament has never taken the lead or even listened to patients and the public. Since 87% to 90% of Quebeckers support advance requests, it seems to me we should be moving forward.

Why is there a problem today? There is a problem because the Canadian Medical Protective Association has always said that physicians will be protected so long as they follow the most restrictive law. At certain times, Quebec had the most restrictive law, after the passage of Bill C‑7 and Bill C‑14. In Canada, there is no law like Quebec's. Quebec applies the Criminal Code and the regulations that explain how to proceed. Quebec ended up having to ensure that people like Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon could not access MAID. Bill C‑7 would have allowed this, so Quebec had to tweak its law.

I am appealing to people's sense of duty and humanity. I hope that my colleagues will set aside government paternalism and get on the same page as the people of Quebec and Canada. I suggest that the government take Bill C‑390 and make it a government bill.

Today, the government is claiming that a national conversation is needed. I thought that forming a special joint committee of senators and members from both chambers in a parliamentary democracy gave those committee members the standing to make recommendations that reflect what the public thinks.

I look forward to seeing what my colleagues have to say during this debate. I invite the government and the Prime Minister to quickly do their homework so they can get up to date on this file, allow advance requests and amend the Criminal Code to harmonize it with what is happening on the ground and eliminate any legal confusion.

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

Madam Speaker, I understand and appreciate that over the years, the Bloc has consistently been pushing the issue in an attempt to move it forward. However, I do believe that the Prime Minister and the government have done a very respectful job at advancing the issue. Part of that advancement is in the consultation we have committed to, which will start in the month of November. Because is a joint responsibility, with both the provinces and the federal government having a role to play, would the member not agree we should in fact be working with the other jurisdictions and with stakeholders before we make a decision?

We know that the subject matter is very complex, and it has been difficult at times for it to even get any attention in the House in order to advance it. There is finally a government that has taken tangible action by working with other jurisdictions and listening to what Canadians want.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say it depends on what the government wants. If it wants to sidestep the issue, buy time, or simply call an election and not have to do anything beforehand, then yes, have a national conversation.

Really, all the government has to do is take Bill C‑390 and introduce a similar bill. That would allow legislatures to move forward if they are ready. Those that need to debate the issue will debate it and, when they are ready, advance requests will be allowed in those provinces.

I do not understand why the government wants to convince people before the debate even takes place in the provinces. It is not up to one government, whatever its political stripe, to decide for everyone. For example, I would have no issue with this becoming a provincial election issue.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to use my time to heartily congratulate my colleague from Montcalm. He has a level of knowledge and expertise that should make the minister envious. The Bloc Québécois believes that the member for Montcalm understands the issue 100%. He understands it in a much more tangible and practical way than the Minister of Health does, which is a shame.

We are hearing all sorts of things about advance requests that I believe are myths. I agree with my colleague that it is a lack of courage on the government's part that is keeping it from swiftly passing legislation that would allow patients in Quebec to choose when they can die with dignity.

My question is very specific. Is it true that anyone can make an advance request at any time and have it granted? According to the people here, it is a slippery slope and everyone could be granted one easily. This is a myth that is circulating among the opposition members. I think that the member for Montcalm has a good answer for them.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question, which gives me an opportunity to explain that people often confuse advance requests with advance directives.

An advance request is a request for MAID made by a person with a neurodegenerative cognitive disease that is incurable, irrerversible and therefore incapacitating. They have to be diagnosed first, though. It is not like signing the back of a health card to consent to being an organ donor.

If I am 50 years old and I make an advance request for MAID today in case I get Alzheimer's disease, the form will go straight into the trash can. That is because I need to be diagnosed with it first. Once a person has a diagnosis, then they become eligible for care. They are then taken in hand by a care team that sees them through to the end of their journey, as hard as that may be.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by complimenting and applauding the member for his work. We served on the joint committee together, and I would like to thank him for his contributions.

Indeed, medical assistance in dying is an extremely complex and personal issue. I am wondering whether the member would like to speak to the safeguards that could be in place to protect people on the basis on mental illness.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, my goal this morning was not to reignite the debate on mental disorders. We debated that with Bill C‑62. My goal today was to reignite the debate because the government refused to implement the the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying's key recommendation, which was to move forward and accept advance requests. Not only did it refuse to implement the recommendation, but it did not even start thinking about it because it thinks it is too complicated. Only now, after a year and a half, does it want to start talking to people. My goal today is to focus on the issue of advance requests and the Liberal government's inexplicable inertia. The government should be ashamed to have left such an important report to gather dust.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Montcalm not only for his speech, but also for his extensive and truly exemplary work on this issue. I share his impatience and frustration with the Liberal government's inaction.

My question concerns the impact that this has been having on Quebec physicians since yesterday. Quebec physicians are in an impossible situation, caught between Quebec legislation that authorizes advance requests and a Canadian code that prohibits them. The rather distressing situation confronting them at the moment is affecting their decisions and their work.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is absolutely right. Family doctors in Quebec have been providing MAID since the Quebec legislation passed. Right now, given the rule that says that, when there are two different laws, the most restrictive law applies, these doctors are now wondering how they will defend themselves in the event of a civil suit.

The government can say that it will not challenge Bill 11, but doctors know full well that they are not immune from lawsuits. The Attorney General of Canada can issue a directive, but what is a directive really worth in a state governed by the rule of law if the Criminal Code remains unamended? That puts a damper on things.

Every time a new case concerning advance requests comes up, there is always resistance. There is even still resistance in the case of people in the terminal stages of cancer. We can therefore assume that there will be pockets of resistance, with some doctors refusing to offer their patients the option.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question from my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

The minister responsible for seniors is the one who led the debate in Quebec. When I spoke to her, she said that her government was obviously going to move forward, but that she thinks that it is a shame that the federal government will not follow suit for the reasons my colleague from Montcalm has just explained: the risks and fears it raises among some doctors.

What message is that sending? How sure can we be if there is a change of government? We know what the Conservatives think about medical aid in dying. What is going to happen with this law and the decisions that will be made in Quebec?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I mentioned that in my questions to the government this week. I asked if the government was aware of the current political situation. We need to be able to analyze it. The political situation in Canada is that, if an election were triggered tomorrow morning, we would find ourselves with a Conservative government. Conservative governments have always been against all forms of MAID, so the current government is playing Pontius Pilate and washing its hands. It is leaving it up to another government to settle the matter.

That is what I mean when I say they lack political courage. I thought that the Liberals had political courage. I find it odd that they are always throwing abortion in the Conservatives' face. They should be throwing medical aid in dying in the Conservatives' face instead.

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

Madam Speaker, before I get under way, I would like to comment on the member's last statement. He pointed out the Conservative Party's resistance to the issue. I believe it is Bill C-390 that the Bloc is advocating for and advancing, which attempts to deal with the issue. This is the first time I am hearing it on the floor of the House. I would have thought Bloc members would have raised the issue with the leadership teams in the hope that we might be able to work together on Bill C-390 and, at the very least, how it might be incorporated into some of the consultations.

There is absolutely no doubt this is a very important issue. Since 2015, when the Supreme Court decided on the issue, it has been a hot topic for parliamentarians on all sides of the House. We have seen a great deal of compassion and emotion, and understandably so.

Before I get into the substance of the report, I want to refer to why we find ourselves again talking about this concurrence report. For issues of the day that are really important to caucus strategies, or the desire to have a public discussion, we have what we call opposition days. We need to contrast concurrence reports, including the one today that the Bloc has brought forward, with opposition day motions that are brought forward. We will find there is a stark difference. The Bloc is not alone. It will bring forward a motion or a concurrence report and say how important it is that we debate it, yet it is never given any attention on opposition days, when not only could the concurrence report be debated, but the opposition day motion could instruct an action of some form or another.

Why are we debating it today? I would suggest it is because of an action taken a number of weeks ago. We need to ask ourselves why there has been no discussion on Bill C-71, the Citizenship Act, which we started the session with. Everyone but the Conservatives supports that act. There is Bill C-66, where sexual abuses taking place within the military could be shifted over to the civil courts. My understanding is that every political party supports that legislation.

There is Bill C-33 regarding rail and marine safety and supply lines, which is very important to Canada's economy. There is Bill C-63, the online harms bill. Last night, members talked about the importance of protecting children from the Internet, and yet the government introduced Bill C-63, the online harms act. We are trying to have debates in the House of Commons on the legislation I just listed. It does not take away from the importance of many other issues, such as the one today regarding MAID. MAID is an important issue, and I know that. We all know that.

Yesterday, a concurrence report on housing was debated. Housing is also a very important issue, I do not question that, but we have well over 100 reports in committees at report stage. If we were to deal with every one of those reports, not only would we not have time for government legislation, but we would not have time for opposition days either, not to mention confidence votes. I am okay with that, as long as we get the budget passed through. We have to ask why we are preventing the House of Commons from being able to do the things that are important to Canadians. That can be easily amplified by looking at the behaviour of the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives will stand up today and talk about MAID, as well they should; I will too. However, there is no doubt that they are happy to talk about that issue today only because it feeds into their desire to prevent the government from having any sort of debate on legislation, let alone attempting to see legislation pass to committee. The Conservative Party is more concerned about its leader and the Conservative Party agenda than the agenda of Canadians and the types of things we could be doing if the official opposition party would, for example, allow its motion to actually come to a vote.

We are debating this concurrence motion because the Conservatives have frustrated the other opposition parties to the degree that we are sick and tired of hearing Conservatives stand up repeatedly, over 100 of them now, on the privilege issue, preventing any and all types of debate. So, as opposed to listening to Conservatives speak on something that is absolutely useless, we are ensuring that at least there is some debate taking place on important issues, such as MAID and housing.

Members of all political stripes need to realize the games the Conservatives are playing come at great expense to Canadians. The motion of privilege is to send the issue to PROC. Every member in the House supports that except for the Conservatives, yet it is a Conservative motion. They are filibustering and bringing the House to standstill, unless we are prepared to think outside the box and bring in a motion for concurrence. The concurrence motion, no doubt, is better than listening to the Conservatives continue to repeat speeches.

I attempted to address their speeches in great detail weeks ago. It is time we change the channel. It is time the Leader of the Opposition started putting Canadians and the nation's best interests ahead of his own personal interests and the Conservative Party of Canada's interests. We need to start talking about issues that Canadians want to hear about.

I was pleased when the member from the Bloc made reference to indications that the Province of Quebec wants to move forward on this issue. My understanding is that the province is even taking substantial actions towards it. Advance requests for MAID have been on the table and been discussed. We need to recognize it is not only Ottawa that plays a role in regard to MAID and its implementation. Our primary role is with the Criminal Code and how we might be able to make changes to it.

Members, no matter what region they come from, have to appreciate that Canada is a vast country in which there is an obligation to consult with the different provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, community advocates, health care professionals and Canadians. There is an obligation to do that, especially around the type of legislation the member of the Bloc is trying to change.

I was hoping to get a second question from the member, because he made reference to Bill C-390. I am not familiar with its background. It is probably completely related to the advance requests for MAID. The member, in his question to me, could maybe expand on what exactly the bill is proposing. I would ask, in regard to it, to what degree the member has done his homework. Doing the homework means going outside the province of Quebec. All provinces have something to say about the issue. Many people who were born in Quebec live in other jurisdictions, just as many people who were born in other parts of the country now call Quebec home.

We have an obligation to not take legislation dealing with issues like MAID lightly. Just because one jurisdiction is advancing it more quickly than another jurisdiction, or because one jurisdiction is demanding it, it does not necessarily mean Ottawa can buy into it at the snap of its fingers. That is not to take anything away from Quebec. On a number of fronts, Quebec has led the nation. I could talk about issues like $10-a-day child care, a national program that the Prime Minister and government, with solid support from the Liberal caucus, have advanced and put into place, and every province has now agreed to it. The MAID file is a good example where Quebec is probably leading, in pushing the envelope, more than any other province, as it did with child care. Other jurisdictions take a look at other aspects.

Health care, today, is a national program that was implemented by a national Liberal government, but the idea that predated it came from Tommy Douglas. Its practical implementation was demonstrated in the province of Saskatchewan. As a government, we continue to support health care in a very real and tangible way. By contrast, we can take a look at the Conservatives on health care and the concerns we have in terms of a threat to health care. We have invested $198 billion in health care. That ensures future generations can feel comfortable in knowing the federal government will continue to play a strong role in health care. Why is that relevant to the debate today? For many of the individuals who are, ultimately, recipients of MAID, it is an issue of long-term care, hospice care.

When my grandmother passed away in the 1990s, in St. Boniface Hospital, it was a very difficult situation. We would have loved to have had hospice care provided for her, but it did not happen. That does not take anything away from the fantastic work that health care workers provide in our system, but there she sat in a hospital setting, which was was questionable in terms of dying with dignity.

Health care and long-term care matter. With respect to my father's passing, it was Riverview and it was a totally different atmosphere because it provided hospice care. Health care matters when we talk about MAID. What the Government of Canada is bringing forward is recognition that we cannot change things overnight, but at least we are moving forward.

Back in 2015, when the Supreme Court made a decision, former prime minister Stephen Harper did absolutely nothing in terms of dealing with the issue of MAID, and the current leader of the Conservative Party was a major player during that whole Stephen Harper era. It put us into a position where, virtually immediately after the federal election, we had to take action, and we did. I remember vividly when members of Parliament shared stories in Centre Block. I remember the emotions. I remember many of my colleagues sitting on the committee that listened to Canadians from across the country with respect to the issue. We all talked to constituents and conveyed their thoughts in Ottawa. We were able to bring in and pass legislation, the first ever for Canada, that dealt with the issue.

In 2021, we actually updated the legislation that dealt with persons whose death was not reasonably foreseeable. We are making changes, but it has to be done in a fashion that is fair, reasonable and responsible.

We want to hear from Canadians. We want to hear what the different provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, stakeholders, doctors, nurses, those who are providing that direct care and the families have to say. This is a very personal decision that people have to make at very difficult times in their lives. We should not be taking it for granted in any fashion whatsoever.

That is the reason, once again, we have another special joint standing committee that hopefully will be starting its work in November, with the idea of doing something tangible over six or eight weeks, whatever it takes, so it can bring something back to the House to deal with advance requests for MAID. That seems to be the focal point of what the Bloc is talking about today.

I want to come back to some of my other comments in regard to the government's recognition of the importance of the issue of MAID. We have done that since 2015. We continue to recognize it and work with Canadians and the many different stakeholders, and we are committed to continuing to do that. It is unfortunate that because of the games being played by the leader of the Conservative Party and by members of the Conservative Party of Canada, the government is not able to continue to have important legislation debated, legislation like the Citizenship Act, the issue of military court to civil court with respect to sexual abuse, online harms act and the rail and marine safety act. All of these are so important.

I am asking the Conservative Party of Canada to stop focusing on its leader's best interests and to start thinking of Canadians' best interests. I am asking it to stop the filibuster and allow legislation, at the very least, to get to committee so Canadians can have their say.

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

Madam Speaker, two weeks ago, the Ontario MAID Death Review Committee, out of the Ontario coroner's office, issued a damning report in which it identified multiple cases of abuse and non-compliance, persons who were administered MAID who likely did not qualify under the law, as well as evidence of elements of coercion leading to their deaths.

In the face of that shocking report out of the Ontario coroner's office, the silence from the Liberals has been deafening. Where has the Minister of Health been? Where has the Minister of Justice been? They have been AWOL.

My question for the parliamentary secretary is, why?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is amazing that the member, who is an active participant with Stephen Harper, and I have emphasized just how close his current leader was with Stephen Harper, wants to talk about being absent. The Supreme Court of Canada made a decision, and the Conservatives have absolutely nothing to say at all. They are not bringing in any legislation let alone any committees of the House of Commons to deal with the issue. They want to bury it.

Canadians who understand and appreciate the importance of MAID should be aware that one cannot trust the Conservative Party, especially under the far-right Conservative-Reform leader it has today. They should be fearful of the things that we will witness if it becomes government.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am so angry at what I have been hearing over the past 20 minutes. The parliamentary secretary to the government leader clearly showed his ignorance when it comes to advance requests. He showed his ignorance and lack of knowledge. He does not even know what is in Bill C‑390, which was tabled here in May 2024. He said he is not familiar with its content, which offers a solution for provinces that are prepared to accept medical aid in dying and to protect doctors in the case of advance requests. He showed his ignorance.

That is what makes me angry. The government is lazy. It should be ashamed to abandon people who are suffering from Alzheimer's disease and can make an advance request in Quebec. No doctor will want to do that because the government will not put its big boy pants on.