Debates of Feb. 13th, 2024

Foreign Affairs

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I regret interrupting the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, but there is clearly no unanimous consent.

The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets is rising on a point of order. I hope the hon. member has done the honourable thing and has consulted other members before seeking unanimous consent.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Fisheries threw 300 elver harvesters out of work. I am sure you will find unanimous consent in the House to condemn the government for that.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Unfortunately, there is no unanimous consent.

Members are really using up the time that is valuable to those who have other business in the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

We will begin where we left off. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader had just finished his speech, and we were beginning questions and comments.

I apologize for speaking English. I invite my hon. colleague, the member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent, who is well known for his mastery of the language of Molière to come back to the question that he started asking earlier before he was interrupted.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to answer your invitation to ask a question.

During his speech, the member related an issue with the fact that he considered that, on this side, we sometimes say something that is not true. Unfortunately, that is not a fact.

An October 8, 2022, Global News report stated, and I quote:

How poverty, not pain, is driving Canadians with disabilities to consider medically-assisted death.

An article in the May 9, 2023, edition of the National Post was entitled:

Canada shouldn't deny assisted suicide if social conditions made life intolerable: bioethicists.

There is also a CBC News article from June 22, 2023, entitled “Quadriplegic Ontario woman considers medically assisted dying because of long ODSP wait times”.

This is proof, without a shadow of a doubt, that, yes, unfortunately, in this country, there are people who have had difficulties with their social life and decided to knock at the door of MAID. I am quite sure that, in the minds of everybody here in the House, MAID was not made for that purpose. That is exactly what our colleagues said during their speeches. Does the member recognize that, yes, unfortunately, sometimes MAID could be used for a purpose that was not intended?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really important that we do not try to trivialize the important issue of MAID.

I have witnessed Conservatives, many different Conservatives, standing to talk about MAID as something that someone could just go to the doctor today and say, “Jeez, I would like to be able to commit suicide. Can I have an appointment on Friday?” It may not have been in those exact words, but that is very close to what Conservative members have implied in the chamber today, and they have implied it previously.

It does a great disservice to the issue at hand. I would suggest that this whole “suicide on demand” the Conservative members want to classify it as is not contributing positively to the debate. I would ask Conservative members, in particular, to take the debate more seriously, and let us not go to the extreme. I have more confidence in health care professionals, social workers, family members or the individuals who are thoroughly consulted well before any sort of a decision is made.

Alleged Inadmissibility of Amendment to Motion, Government Business No. 34

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your accommodating the timing of this. I apologize to the members who are involved in debate, but because the matter is currently under consideration by the House, I think giving the Speaker as much time as possible to consider it would be appropriate.

I am rising to ask that you rule the amendment made to the motion, Government Business No. 34, out of order, since according to Bosc and Gagnon, at page 541, it introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion.

The main motion proposes two things in relation to Bill C-62. Part (a) would establish committee meetings on the subject matter of Bill C-62. It proposes one hour to hear from a minister and two hours to hear from other witnesses.

Part (b) deals specifically with the time and management for each stage of the bill. Part (b)(i) would order the consideration by the House of a second reading stage and provides for the number of the speakers, length of speeches, length of debate and deferral of the vote at second reading. It would also restrict the moving of dilatory motions to that of a minister of the Crown. Part b(ii) would deem that Bill C-62 be referred to a committee of the whole and be deemed reported back without amendments, and it would order the consideration of third reading on Thursday, February 15, 2024.

Nowhere does the motion deal with the substance or the text of Bill C-62; it is a programming motion dealing with process, not substance. While this can and has been done by unanimous consent, it cannot be done by way of an amendment. The consequence of an amendment to allow for the expansion of the scope of Bill C-62 and, at the same time, proposing to amend the text of Bill C-62, is that it would, if accepted, expand the scope of the motion.

The process to expand the scope of the bill outside of unanimous consent is to adopt a stand-alone motion after the proper notice and procedures were followed. Page 756 of Bosc and Gagnon describes that procedure as follows:

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as...expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.

Alternatively, a separate, stand-alone bill would suffice to introduce the concept of the subject material that is under the amendment for MAID. It is not in order to accomplish this by way of a simple amendment to a programming motion dealing with the management of House time on a government bill.

If you were to review the types of amendments to programming motions, and I am not talking about unanimous consent motions, they all deal with the management of House and committee time, altering the numbers of days, hours of meetings, witnesses, etc. As recently as December 4, 2023, the House disposed of an amendment that dealt with the minister's appearing as a witness and the deletion of parts of the bill dealing with time allocation. This was also the case for the programming motions for Bill C-56, Bill C-31 and Bill C-12.

Unless the main motion strays from the management of time and routine procedural issues and touches on the actual text of the bill, an amendment that attempts to amend the bill is out of order. For example, on May 9, 2023, the House adopted a programming motion for Bill C-21, the firearms act. Part (a) of the main motion then stated that:

it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, that during its consideration of the bill, the committee be granted the power to expand its scope, including that it applies to all proceedings that have taken place prior to the adoption of this order...

The motion went on at some length, instructing the committee to consider a number of amendments to the act. This in turn allowed the Conservative Party to propose an amendment to the programming motion and offer its own amendments to the bill itself, which addressed illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs and brought in measures to crack down on border smuggling and to stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals and gangs in Canada, to name just a few.

The point is that if the main motion does not address the text of the bill, an amendment cannot introduce the new proposition of amending the text of the bill to the programming motion, which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion.

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

I thank the hon. member for the intervention. We will look at that with the Table and come back with an answer as soon as possible.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member whether he could speak more specifically to the work of the special committee and how important it was for us to be non-partisan in approach. Medical assistance in dying is such an important and deeply personal issue. It was really the work of the committee that helped us arrive at the decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member emphasized how this is a deeply personal issue, to use her words. That is why, at the beginning of my comments earlier today before question period, I tried to amplify why it is so important that the House reflect on what brought us here today.

I reflect on the debates that took place in early 2016, which were conducted in more of a non-partisan approach where members of all political parties talked about what is a very important issue. Nothing has changed in the sense of the importance of the issue. We are talking about an issue of death, and we see that Conservatives are putting a twist on it in an attempt to politicize the issue to the degree that there is some silliness as to what is being implied.

I like to think that anyone who is even entertaining the idea of accessing MAID takes it very seriously. That is the reason why, in good part, I believe that every member of the House, party politics aside, should be looking at what the Supreme Court of Canada right back to 2015, and the Charter of Rights, said our responsibility is as legislators: to come forward with good, sound public policy. I believe that over the years, including today with Bill C-62, we have been addressing a very important issue and that the three-year extension is needed because of the response we are getting from stakeholders, in particular our provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, following up on the question from the member for Fredericton, I was a member of that special joint committee, and I agree with her that its work was quite important. I think that every member, both from the House and the Senate, approached the subject matter with the responsibility and gravitas it demanded. However, I will put an asterisk beside that because the committee, in its last iteration, was afforded only three meetings of three hours each with witnesses. Unfortunately, there were a lot of witnesses we could have heard from. We did not even have time to go over the briefs that were submitted because there were so many of them and there simply was not time to translate them into both official languages.

This is mainly a comment for the parliamentary secretary to respond to: I am glad to see that we actually have a legislative requirement built into Bill C-62 that the special joint committee would be reconvened. I hope it would be done with plenty of runway to give this particular subject the time it deserves, which I frankly would say most Canadians expect.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would pick up on the point that we have an infrastructure, and part of that infrastructure in Parliament is the special committees.

I am an optimist in the sense that I hope we will see the special committee, at some point in time in the future, continue to do a lot of the fine work it has already done to date. Hopefully it would be of a depoliticized nature, where members, no matter where they are from, the Senate or the chamber, and from any political party, would be able to entertain a very healthy discussion. I believe, in the long run, given the very nature and importance of the legislation, that this is by far the best way to go. It is because of the deadline of March 17 that we are having to push it through as quickly as we are today.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am listening carefully to the hon. member for Winnipeg North and putting myself in his shoes. There have been procedural delays for months. I picture the hon. member for Winnipeg North a few months ago, demonstrating leadership by making a fuss in the Liberal lobby. I imagine him doing everything in his power to avoid having to impose this kind of last-minute closure motion again, preventing members from getting a chance to be heard.

My question is as follows. What has he been doing for the last six months? Why is his government again waiting until the last minute to introduce this other bill? Where is the Liberal leadership on this issue?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a combination of many different factors has ultimately brought us to the point where we are today. One of those factors is that just last week I stood in my place and made the suggestion that we sit until midnight; however, I required unanimous consent, and there were some in the chamber who did not support the idea of sitting extra hours later into the evening so we could have had more debate on the issue. It is not our lack of desire to see additional debate.

Historically, in the last six years, we have had a great deal of debate inside the chamber and outside the chamber in communities across the country. I suspect we are going to continue to have more, as was pointed out in the previous question in regard to the special committee and the need to have it reconvene. I truly believe that this is going to be an ongoing debate, keeping in mind that the legislation first came in not that long ago, in 2016. It took a number of years before the Province of Quebec was able to bring in legislation, whereas we had a Supreme Court decision timeline we had to work against. I suspect that is one of the reasons we needed to make some of the amendments we have made today.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to add my voice to this important conversation and an even bigger privilege to split my time with my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

As parliamentarians, issues we debate in this place are often framed as life and death, but no issue we have discussed has ever come so truly close to verging on life and death as the one in front of us today, which is medical assistance in dying, or MAID, specifically elective MAID for the sole purpose of mental illness.

It is not the first time we have discussed MAID, or MAID for mental illness, in the House, and I have a feeling it probably will not be the last. This is because the Liberal government has treated MAID not as a sober rational conversation it deserves to be or as a collaborative understanding discussion, but rather as a political football, a hatchet job that highlights its deep commitment to breaking consensus in the country on an issue it has so sorely misjudged.

As a result of that carelessness, or whatever else it may be, we find ourselves here again in a debate for a proposal that should have been done away with a long time ago. Rather than attempt to discuss this legislation with nuance and care, we have what we have today. We know we cannot simplify an issue as fundamental as the state's ability to allow the taking of a life. We know there is much more to be considered.

In the process, the government replaced medical doctors with spin doctors, expert recommendations with partisan ideology and reason with dogmatism. We have heard from those on the front line, including 80% of Ontario psychiatrists, who are opposed to this expansion. Seven out of 10 provincial health ministers, plus all three territorial health ministers, support the indefinite pause on the expansion of MAID. We have heard from advocates, those directly impacted by MAID for mental illness, who agree that this proposal minimizes the value of their lives and the inherent dignity possessed by every single human being.

MAID for the sole purpose of mental illness speaks to the government's lack of respect for that dignity and it speaks to its missing belief in the ability of those facing difficulties and their ability to actually get better. Worse, it speaks to a perverse ideology void of ethical guardrails, which is so far from consensus that has so long been unbroken by the understanding that a role exists for government to exhaust all avenues to help people.

It is now prevalent to, rather than propose treatment and therapy to help those in tough circumstances, propose state-sanctioned death. We have a duty, as leaders, as parliamentarians, to safeguard the lives of Canadians, to give them a helping hand, to help them recover and to help them get better.

We believe in overcoming adversity, seeking help, in a system that works for those who badly need it. We believe it is possible, and the reason we believe it is possible is because it is possible. The success of early intervention, treatment and support has helped countless Canadians live fulsome, productive and meaningful lives. That is not just my philosophy as a parliamentarian; it is the core to what I think our national identity is. The alternative is what I describe as an entirely nihilist state, uninterested in the preservation of its own people.

Our country was formed by people who came from all over the world to seek a better life through hope, hard work and sacrifices. Our lives have been revolutionalized by the brave Canadians who never gave up and for a country that never gave up on them. Our story is defined by confronting whatever difficult obstacles might lie ahead, and not being intimidated by them but by surmounting them. It is not just a discussion about this legislation; it is a fundamental debate about who we are as Canadians and who we want to be and the powers we have as a Parliament.

I want to be clear that I do not want to minimize or deny the intense personal and lived experiences many Canadians have with mental health, many in the House, many who are close to people in the House. I know it is a deeply personal one for anyone who has been faced with that challenge.

However, I do want to put on record that the lives of those suffering are not any less worthy of help, support or love. I think that is what this eventual plan says, even with a pause. Expansion activists have tried to reassure Canadians that MAID is not suicide, that it would be distinguishable from suicide, yet when expanded to those who are seeking death for the sole purpose of mental health, evidence points to MAID becoming indistinguishable from suicide.

Therefore, despite the ideological pursuit of what I call the government's nihilism and the inability for it to manage its own legislation, it will not be able to escape the very real legacy that it has ushered in, a legacy that will become even more apparent as Canadians see more headlines of assisted suicide being offered to those in the Canadian Forces or to marginalized Canadians seeking an escape from suffering or poverty.

Simply put, people can get better. Recovery is possible. Whereas outcomes might be forgone in physical health, there is no clear evidence that says someone cannot overcome struggles with mental health, and that alone should be enough. I cannot stress enough that we have no way of knowing that it is not possible to get better.

Our methods are not advanced enough. The research says so. Only 47% of predictions about final outcomes are correct. Therefore, when a doctor diagnoses a lifelong mental illness, there is only a 47% change that he or she will be correct. That is like flipping a coin, only the odds are worse. Are we really willing to put something so substantial down to a game of chance?

This difficulty is compounded by the very fact that it is impossible for doctors to see mental health in the way that they can see things like terminal cancer. It does not show up in a scan or in a test. While it is not the subject here, I have to ask this. How fair is it to put doctors in a position where they cannot make a decision with 100% of the evidence or that the evidence before them, accounts of either the patient or the patient's family, is not what it appears to be? How can someone have the peace of mind that the best outcome has been decided?

We cannot let ideology blind us from the red flags that we are confronting at every step in this process. In the absence of certainty, it is fundamentally wrong for the state to do what I believe amounts to playing games with human lives. While I support the pause, not because its well argued, well planned or even well considered, because it is necessary, I do not think it is enough.

A pause, more consultation and more studies mean little if we refuse to listen to the facts and insights that they bring. No amount of additional testimony will change the fact that there have been significant doubts raised about the morality and ethics of implementing MAID for mental illness.

We cannot unhear those words that were spoken in committee. We cannot unread the words that we have seen plastered in the newspapers. We cannot ignore the accounts of those who are rightfully more than just skeptical.

I want those who side with the government to think about what the proposal, not the pause, actually means for the most vulnerable. It is unconscionable to me. I cannot understand the different perspective when mental health is the only condition that would allow someone to seek an end, a government-sanctioned end, to their lives.

There is only one pause worth doing. There is only one pause that is safe. There is only one pause that protects the innocent, the truly ill and the most vulnerable, and that is a forever pause. Anything less than that is a failure of this place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised in how the Conservatives are approaching the debate. They have made it very clear that they do not support the expansion of MAID with regard to mental health. However, it will automatically take effect come March 17, unless this legislation passes. They seem to want to prevent the legislation from passing, especially if we take a look at the vote.

Does the Conservative Party want this legislation to pass and, if so, will they support it?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are going to take every single opportunity to put on the record in this House that these Liberals have broken what is a long-formed consensus in this country, that MAID, for the sole purpose of mental illness, is a no go. We are going to continue to speak about that so that Canadians know where they stand.

I know that they have brought legislation forward, but it is not our responsibility to clean up the mess that has made us stand here at the eleventh hour because they screwed up their schedule and their legislation.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, medical assistance in dying and mental health are obviously not simple issues. What is surprising, however, is that some people experience intolerable suffering. An expert report found that these people are not eligible. For example, people who are suicidal are not eligible if they are newly diagnosed and being monitored but refuse treatment and their requests are based on systemic vulnerabilities. Help and support are available to these people. Just because someone requests medical assistance in dying does not mean that they will receive it.

The Conservatives' conception of medical assistance in dying is flawed. There are people suffering right now who need their support.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear from the evidence of those who have raised concerns about this issue that there is not enough evidence to say that somebody cannot get better. It is not the job of a parliamentarian to encourage that, to make it a priority in this country or even make it allowed in this country.

We need to make sure that we expand a system in which people can actually get help, and that a utilitarian vision of this world is not the thing that we strive for to make sure there is room in the system or that people can just do what they want. We actually have to try with people. We have to try and help them recover and get better. Offering them this tool, I think, is an abdication of our fundamental responsibility as leaders and as parliamentarians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with many points my hon. colleague made in her speech. It is why I voted against the Senate amendment to Bill C-7 in the previous Parliament. It is why I voted for the member for Abbotsford's bill, Bill C-314. It is why I agree with the recommendation that came out of the special joint committee.

There is more than enough blame to be assigned to the Liberals, but we are dealing with a March 17 deadline. This is a time the House collectively has to stand up and get this bill through because we also have the Senate to deal with.

Why, with that context upon us right now, did the Conservatives vote the way they did this morning when it is imperative that this bill get passed before March 17?

We do not yet know what is actually going to happen in the Senate. We can only really say for certain what is going to happen in the House, but this is a critically important bill to pass before March 17.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to limit this debate in this House because the Liberals cannot manage their agenda or their legislation, or the fact that they have screwed this up. We are going to continue to have a productive conversation about this and make sure that Canadians know that there are members in this House who want to see this go forward and want to see this go forward quickly.