Debates of Feb. 13th, 2024

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will stay calm because I am not allowed to say what is on my mind. It would be unparliamentary.

I want to say something about the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. There was unanimous consensus on recommendation 21, which I will read, “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.” This is not coming from me. This comes from a joint committee made up of MPs from every party in the House and several senators. That was said in February 2023.

I was a social worker in Quebec. Children have never, ever been euthanized in Quebec. That is not what we are talking about.

I think that the member did not listen to my speech. What I said was that not everyone who asks for medical assistance in dying gets it, and those who do have to go through a thorough and professional clinical process first.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Salaberry—Suroît is a tough act to follow. This is not easy, because we all have someone in mind when we talk about this. We have all lost loved ones over the past few months and years. We all have gone through different experiences. Some people request medical assistance in dying, others do not, but one thing is certain: this is a very sensitive topic. It is with great humility and sensitivity that I rise today to speak to Bill C-62, an act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), no. 2, something we have been talking about for a long time.

We must act by considering the fact that, currently, the Government of Quebec's Bill 11 does not include non-neurocognitive mental disorders as being eligible for medical assistance in dying and that Quebec wants to fill the administrative void surrounding the federal government's position on the subject of mental disorders relative to neurocognitive disorders. Therefore, I am not here to repeat my whip's testimony. I am here to provide some background and talk about Quebec's specificities. I will close by going into more detail about the Bloc's position.

First, in 2014, Quebec passed the Act Respecting End-of-Life care after five years of consultations and of working together across party lines. I want to emphasize that the work was non-partisan. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruling in Carter indicated that some provisions of the Criminal Code that prohibited medical assistance in dying contravened the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 2016, the Liberal government passed Bill C-14, in response to Carter. In 2019, the Quebec Superior Court ruled in favour of Nicole Gladu and Jean Truchon, who claimed that excluding people whose death was not reasonably foreseeable from eligibility for medical assistance in dying was discriminatory. As a result, the court ordered that federal and provincial laws be amended before December 18, 2020.

In 2021, after a pandemic-related delay, Parliament passed Bill C‑7, which created two pathways to medical assistance in dying: One for those whose death is reasonably foreseeable and one for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. Quebec simply chose to drop the end-of-life criterion. Bill C‑7 required that an expert panel be created to review MAID and mental illness. The Expert Panel on MAID and Mental Illness was formed in August 2021 and produced a final report containing 19 recommendations. Recognizing that the legislation was flawed and that issues related to medical assistance in dying remained unresolved, Bill C-7 created the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, composed of members of the Senate and members of the House of Commons, which had a five-part mandate.

The joint committee tabled an interim report on June 22, 2022. There was not much time between the tabling of the joint committee's report, which was initially expected in 2022, and the March 17, 2023, deadline for excluding people from MAID for mental illness, so members postponed eligibility for one year to allow the committee to finish its work. The goal was to give the professions involved more time to develop standards of practice. At last, in February 2024, the joint committee produced its final report. The report contains only one recommendation. Bill C‑62 implements the report's recommendation by postponing eligibility for MAID MD-SUMC, for mental disorders, for three years and by forcing the creation of a joint committee one year before the report.

Sections 241.1 to 241.4 of the Criminal Code govern medical assistance in dying in Canada. What is more, under the law, the government is required to oversee the use of medical assistance in dying via the Regulations for the Monitoring of Medical Assistance in Dying. I am providing all of this background to illustrate that the government could have and should have taken action a long time ago.

Second, in Quebec, medical assistance in dying is governed by the Act Respecting End-of-Life Care. The activities surrounding medical assistance in dying are supervised by the select committee on end-of-life care. In June 2023, the National Assembly of Quebec passed Bill 11 to expand access to medical assistance in dying in Quebec and harmonize Quebec's legislation with the Criminal Code. There are some notable changes to Quebec's legislation. Minister Sonia Bélanger and her colleagues Roberge and Jolin‑Barette held a press conference on February 7 calling on the government to include a provision in the Criminal Code that would allow Quebec to move forward with advance requests, because, even though Quebec's legislation allows it, the Criminal Code does not.

Although doctors who choose to go ahead with advance requests are unlikely to be prosecuted by Quebec's attorney general, the risk of a civil lawsuit is still there, and that will make many doctors think twice about granting advance requests. Quebec's National Assembly has passed a unanimous motion demanding that the federal government legislate on the issue.

Third, the Bloc Québécois will vote for the bill on the condition that the postponement is for one year, not three. The Bloc Québécois believes that eligibility for people suffering from mental disorders must be postponed so that Quebec, the provinces and professional bodies can create a framework for their MAID practices. However, it should not be postponed indefinitely. The Bloc Québécois believes that postponing eligibility by three years will prolong the suffering of individuals who could be eligible for MAID and is contrary to their rights as guaranteed by the charters. The Bloc Québécois wishes to point out that the report of the Expert Panel on MAID and Mental Illness, as well as the Collège des médecins du Québec, emphasized that the safeguards—namely irremediability, severe physical or mental suffering, and free and informed consent—currently provided for in the Criminal Code are sufficient to allow access to MAID where mental disorder is the only underlying condition.

In our supplementary opinion attached to the report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, the Bloc Québécois points out that, even though preparations on the ground for medical assistance in dying when a mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition are not yet complete across Canada, this does not change the fact that several professional associations, including the Collège des médecins du Québec and the Association des médecins psychiatres du Québec, would still like it to be made available in the future.

The Bloc Québécois also acknowledges the requests made by several provinces to postpone eligibility. It should be noted that many countries have adopted policies on medical assistance in dying specifically for mental disorders.

The Bloc Québécois deplores the government's failure to be proactive and the Conservatives' obstruction on the issue of medical assistance in dying when a mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition and on the issue of advance requests. We fear for the patients who will have to turn to the courts to assert their rights while also bearing the burden of their illness.

Finally, the Bloc Québécois condemns the fact that this bill does not distinguish between mental disorders and neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Quebec's law makes that distinction. It would allow people suffering from the latter category to access medical assistance in dying, as advocated by the Quebec government. In the Bloc's opinion, the social consensus on these illnesses is stronger, and it would have liked to see the Criminal Code brought into line with Quebec's end-of-life care law by allowing advance requests.

In his supplementary opinion on MAID, the member for Montcalm, whom I would like to congratulate for all his work on this issue, went into great detail on the reasons that justify MAID when a mental disorder is the sole underlying condition. The position of the Collège des médecins du Québec perfectly sums up the importance of allowing advance requests for medical assistance in dying, as well as medical assistance in dying when a mental disorder is the sole underlying condition. While admitting it needs more time to ensure its members are ready, the Collège des médecins du Québec has established five guidelines for assessing eligibility for medical assistance in dying.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois has a humanist view of medical assistance in dying that is grounded in philosophical principles and ethical arguments that reflect the evolution of Quebec society. Medical assistance in dying recognizes the right of individuals to choose for themselves, to determine the conditions for a healthy and dignified life. Medical advances allow us to sustain life, but that does not preclude the need and right of the individual to define what is an acceptable life. Section 1 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms states that every human being has a “right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom”.

Quebec society believes that the right to life includes the right to die. In that context, we need to see medical assistance in dying as a right that gives the individual the option of avoiding terminal suffering and medical paternalism in order to maintain their dignity. By allowing medical assistance in dying, we allow people to choose how, when and where they want to pass away.

Medical assistance in dying only makes sense if the person's free and informed consent is respected. The word “free” means voluntary and without constraint, and the word “informed” means with all the information needed to make such a decision. Meeting this condition is necessary for accessing medical assistance in dying.

The principles we stand for concerning medical assistance in dying are equally valid in cases of mental illness. Let us not forget that the possibility of access to MAID does not mean automatic eligibility. However, when the Quebec select committee was doing its work, it made a distinction between mental disorders and neurodegenerative diseases. The commission concluded that although there was no consensus on mental disorders, there was a consensus on neurodegenerative diseases. With that in mind, the Quebec government opened the door to advance requests. Advance requests allow an individual to determine the conditions under which MAID should be administered when they have lost the capacity to consent because of their illness.

In its second report, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying expressed its support for advance requests. All parties, except the Conservatives, who are against any form of medical assistance in dying, voted in favour of the recommendations.

As a final point, the federal government therefore has no reason to drag its feet or to deny Quebec's request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of things the member has said, and I like to think that all of us have personal feelings on a wide spectrum of issues, this being one of them for me personally. Having said that, I understand and appreciate the importance of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think it is good to bring responsible public policy in regard to MAID.

Does the member share in the concerns that I have with respect to the Conservative Party's propaganda of spreading things that are grossly exaggerated, like people going to a food bank, feeling poor and wanting to apply for MAID? At the end of the day, they try to make it sound as if one can go and apply today and have suicide-by-government on the Friday. I personally believe that is damaging to the whole debate we are having.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague from Montcalm has arrived. He can answer that question as well as I can, and he must have heard a thing or two from the Conservatives at the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. I sincerely sympathize with him. As my whip herself said earlier, we can hardly believe what we have been hearing since this debate began.

I am speaking today because I have been hearing about this bill from seniors' groups ever since I was named the critic for seniors. They have certainly made me aware of this issue. Seniors' groups in Quebec want this freedom of choice.

I have said this before, but I will say it again because I think it is appalling. Anyone who says that seniors are going to food banks to request medical assistance in dying is engaging in blatant and serious disinformation.

This debate reinforces my conviction about why states must be secular. This is an example of why it is dangerous to let religious elements participate and pay for a political party's leadership race in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely disgusting that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader would stick his head in the sand and deny well-documented cases of abuse and non-compliance with respect to so-called safeguards that are supposedly in place and are to be enforced. It is just disgusting, when speaking of some of the most vulnerable persons in Canadian society.

With respect to the member and her speech, she talked about Conservative obstruction. I would remind her that every member of Parliament, from all recognized parties, on the committee, which I served in, said to put a pause on this expansion, so did chairs of psychiatry, and so did the Province of Quebec in the national assembly, when the committee determined that mental illness as a sole underlying condition was not appropriate in the context of MAID.

I will tell members that when I hear evidence that clinicians could get it wrong 50% of the time, in other words like the flip of a coin, I will obstruct that expansion.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I talked about the Conservatives' obstruction. Unfortunately, I could also talk about the Liberals' inaction, which is why we are still here today, why this file was delayed. What is more, they are asking us to wait another three years. Enough is enough.

As for my colleague's remark, the Conservatives are bringing up cases that might have more to do with the justice system. Before being elected, I worked on the issue of elder abuse. These are isolated cases and they have more to do with the justice system.

In the case at hand, we are talking about professional bodies. I talked about it in my speech. We are also talking about a joint committee made up of senators and MPs who worked hard and proved that the safeguards are there and that, no, it is not true that a person can ask for medical assistance in dying as easily as ordering food in a restaurant.

It is not true. There are safeguards and, in Quebec, this is clearly understood. What we need to do is to let ourselves be guided by the scientific evidence and by what professional bodies are saying, not by isolated cases and regressive religious attitudes.

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

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou on a point of order.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, may I remind my esteemed colleagues that when they ask a question, they should want to hear the answer? At the moment, members seem to be talking to each other across the aisle and not listening to the person who was asked the question.

Respect needs to be shown not only at school, but in everyday life.

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

I thank the hon. member for pointing out that members need to listen to each other in the House. Those who have been recognized are the ones who should take part in the discussion.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge has the floor.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House on behalf of the wonderful residents of my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and all of the residents in the city of Vaughan.

I will be sharing my time with my friend and colleague from the wonderful riding of Kitchener Centre.

Before I begin my formal remarks, this is a debate on Bill C-62, medical assistance in dying, which is obviously highly personal to all members in the House. Remarks are being delivered today with much passion, substance and thought. I will add a few words on that front. I have provided my personal beliefs on medical assistance in dying, which I am obviously in favour of. I know many individuals in many families who made tough decisions that were not with regard to mental illness. That gives me great consternation and much thought.

I am glad that a pause will be put in place because mental illness is a complex subject. I am not an expert and will not profess to be an expert, but we all know someone who has struggled with mental illness. We all know family members or friends for whom mental illness continues to be an issue. Unfortunately, many folks have taken their lives, and we need to make sure there is a system in place that is robust, where people can get the help and assistance they need to live their full lives, which God has blessed them with.

I am convinced that our current MAID system is working well. I would like to take the next ten minutes to explain why Canadians should have confidence in our MAID legislation and its application over the past seven years. I also want to describe some of the activities that will help sustain that confidence when eligibility is expanded in March 2027, as proposed in Bill C-62.

When the law authorizing medical assistance in dying was originally passed in 2016, it included a number of mandatory eligibility criteria for anyone requesting MAID. The person must be an adult of at least 18 years of age and capable of making health-related decisions. The request must be voluntary. Their request must be fully informed, and the person must have knowledge of the options available to relieve their suffering. They must have a grievous and irremediable health condition, meaning it cannot be cured, which is defined as follows: They have “a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability; they are in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability”, and they are experiencing “enduring physical or psychological suffering” that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable.

In 2016, the law also required that the person's natural death be reasonably foreseeable. In 2019, the Quebec Superior Court ruled that this criterion violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In March 2021, a revised version of the federal law was passed, extending eligibility for MAID to people whose natural death was not reasonably foreseeable as long as they met other eligibility criteria.

In addition to these eligibility criteria, the law also sets out many procedural safeguards that a clinician must meet before administering medical assistance in dying. Here are a few of them: Two independent practitioners must provide a written confirmation of the person's eligibility. The person who is requesting medical assistance in dying must be informed that they can change their mind at any time and in any way and that their wishes must be respected. Also, the person must reconfirm their desire to receive medical assistance in dying immediately before receiving it.

When a person's natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, a series of enhanced safeguards must be respected. I will talk about some of those critical safeguards.

First, at least one of the two MAID assessors must have expertise in the person's medical condition. If they do not have that expertise, they must consult another practitioner who does. Second, the person must be informed of the means available to alleviate their suffering and be offered meaningful consultations. Third, these means must have been discussed, and both MAID assessors must agree that the person has seriously considered these means. Fourth, at least 90 days must pass between the beginning of the eligibility assessment and the day on which MAID is administered. These are legislated safeguards that all practitioners must abide by.

We know that MAID practitioners across the country exercise considerable professional judgment in providing this service by keeping patients' interests and wishes at the forefront.

Practitioners work hard to ensure that MAID is a last resort. They compile essential information about the person's medical condition, their treatment history and their use of support services. They have the necessary conversations to ensure that their patients are aware of the services available to them that might alleviate their suffering. It is about exploring treatment options, facilitating referrals and following up on the results.

If the person who wants to receive MAID consents to involving family members and loved ones, the practitioners will encourage their involvement and include them in the discussions that are part of the overall assessment process.

Practitioners are also aware that they do not always have the necessary expertise in the patient's condition to conduct a full assessment. In these situations, they have to consult the relevant experts and other health professionals who have the necessary expertise to make an informed decision. Some provinces or regional health care authorities have put in place MAID care coordination services or case consultation mechanisms that rely on a team or network of doctors, nurses and other professionals, such as social workers and spiritual leaders, to support the assessment process.

What does that mean for the future, once we begin allowing MAID requests based on enduring and intolerable suffering resulting solely from mental illness? Are our existing legislative safeguards sufficient? How can we be sure that the same level of care, diligence and consistency in the provision of MAID will be the norm?

In 2021, as mandated by the former Bill C-7, an expert panel reviewed the issue and concluded that the existing legal framework for eligibility criteria and safeguards is sufficient, provided MAID assessors apply the existing framework appropriately, with guidance from MAID standards of practice that have been developed as well as specialized training.

In the time I have left, I would just like to say that we all rise in this most honoured House on many topics. One of these topics, probably one of the most personal ones that we have risen on in the number of years I have been here, is medical assistance in dying. I look forward to questions from the hon. members in the House, who have been sent here by their constituents. This is an important debate for us to have, and it is an important topic to discuss.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree that this is an intensely personal decision for each one of us. I listened carefully to the member's speech.

At the beginning, he seemed to suggest that the reason the government was compelled to move forward with expanding MAID for the mentally ill was that the lower courts have forced the government to do this, but the courts have not actually directed the Canadian government to implement MAID for the mentally ill. The Supreme Court of Canada has never opined on the matter. In fact, every time the Liberal government has been given the opportunity to appeal a case to the Supreme Court, it has refused to do so, probably for ideological reasons.

I would ask the member for his opinion. Does he believe that the Supreme Court of Canada has directed the House, this Parliament, to implement medical assistance in dying for the mentally ill, yes or no?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had much respect and much time for the hon. member in all of our conversations. I am not a lawyer. On having something referenced to the Supreme Court for a decision, I would have to get back to the learned member for Abbotsford on that front.

I would say that it is important for all members in the House to look at the evolving needs of individuals in this country, speak with the pertinent experts and work with the provinces and territories.

I have always believed that we should legislate and not defer to the courts. That is my own personal opinion. I believe in that. I think that is the best way to legislate and govern. We should do so by taking decisions in the House, while making sure they are obviously compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which I know all members in the House hold dear.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite was wondering about the Carter decision. In my opinion, Carter clearly demonstrates that absolute prohibition would indeed be discriminatory and stigmatizing.

That said, I would like to ask him the following question.

My colleague obviously supports his government's bill, which defers application of the law by three years. Does this mean that he is going to lobby within his government so that, the day after tomorrow, once we have voted, the bill has gone through the Senate and the law has come into force, the committee will get back to work and eventually come up with a bill focusing on mental disorders, in particular, as well as on advance requests?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Quebec for his question and assure him that this is very important to us.

My answer would be yes, of course, as a member of Parliament, I always work in the interests of my constituents, and this is an issue and a law that has been brought forth in the last number of years that people are quite passionate about. I have always grappled with the technical and fine details of the law and the early provisions on a personal level. One term that has been used is “foreseeable death”. Thinking about this must be done with much diligence and judiciousness.

I continue to advocate on our side and within our caucus for a law that is robust, that reflects the individual interests of Canadians and that is obviously compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have gotten ourselves into trouble with the use of arbitrary timelines. The Senate amendment to Bill C-7 kicked the can down the road two years. Last year's Bill C-39 added a year, and now Bill C-62 would add three years.

I just want the member to put that into the context of the fact that the health ministers of seven out of 10 provinces and all three territories have asked for an indefinite pause. The special joint committee, likewise, was very careful not to put a timeline in its recommendation for a pause.

How does the member reconcile this three-year pause with the fact that those institutions, those provincial governments, would rather put more of a qualitative benchmark than a timeline on it?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of a timeline of three, five or six years, obviously, a decision was made. As the member identified, we need to work with the provinces and territories as we move forward on this policy. We need to make sure that all provinces, territories, health ministers and individuals working in the various fields are ready for this. We need to make sure that we are ready for this and that it goes through in a manner that is prudent and appropriate.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tonight, I rise in strong support of Bill C-62, which would delay expanding medical assistance in dying for those in whom mental illness is the sole underlying condition by three years. My reasons for doing so are the same as they were in my speech to Bill C-39, one year ago to this day, at the time when the government was willing to delay by only one year: First of all, this delay aligns with what I have heard from so many folks in my community; second, we know that this is what experts have been calling for, for some time; and third, as Greens, we believe we should spend more time filling in our social safety net before we expand medical assistance in dying.

Today, Greens also believe that we should be rushing this legislation before the March 17 deadline to ensure that MAID is not expanded for mental illness as the sole underlying condition because this is the next best thing to what Bill C-314 would have done. Bill C-314, which was proposed by the member for Abbotsford, would have avoided this expansion for good.

Substantively, in the process we are in right now, this bill has been moving ahead quite quickly to this point. I expect that, as votes follow over the coming days, we will continue to move based on the motion that was approved earlier in the day. This shows that the House of Commons can move quickly when there is an urgent priority to be addressed, as is the case with the March 17 deadline in the existing legislation. Really, what this is about in terms of moving quickly is not that we do not have the legislative tools but that we need the political will to do it.

When I think about this legislation in front of us, outside what I have shared so far in terms of why I am supporting it, why I have historically and why Greens have historically as well, my question is this: Where is the rush to support legislation that would substantively improve the quality of life of Canadians? Other members have reflected on and shared feedback, which I hope they have heard directly from people with disabilities across the country. Where is the rush on ending legislated poverty for people with disabilities?

The fact is that, to this day, 40% of people living in poverty across the country are people with disabilities. While some will talk all about a piece of legislation that was passed in June of last year, the fact is that a person with a disability is no better off today than they were before that legislation was passed. The benefit is not yet funded, and we have not engaged in and figured out negotiations with provinces and territories. It is shameful. It is an embarrassment that, in a country as rich as ours, we are in a place where people with disabilities continue to live in legislated poverty. The House of Commons could choose to act as urgently to end legislated poverty for people with disabilities as it is moving right now to ensure that the March 17 deadline is met.

The House of Commons could also push to actually address one of the core underlying issues here, which is the lack of supports to address mental health. In fact, at the time of the last electoral campaign, the Liberal Party promised a Canada mental health benefit. It was meant to be called the “Canada mental health transfer”. It was a $4.5-billion commitment, and it was not one of several bullet points in a health accord, the way we have now. One of the challenges is that, while we all want our health care to be delivered in a wholesome way, it is more helpful to have funding agreements that are specific, so we can have accountability on them. However, that is not the case when it comes to mental health. Instead, mental health is one of four bullet points in these provincial and federal agreements. As a result, it is up to the provinces, and it is unclear whether there is any accountability whatsoever on how many of the dollars in those agreements will go directly to mental health.

In this year's budget, we could see the government step up, be more clear and say it is going to make sure it directly funds what was supposed to be the Canada mental health transfer. In so doing, it would substantively improve the quality of life of Canadians, of folks in my community who are waiting on unreasonable wait times and lists to get access to a mental health professional.

If we were really serious about moving quickly on another core crisis in this country, we would move far more quickly on addressing the housing crisis. Again, for me, the little bit of hope I have, seeing what is happening right now, is that we know there are parliamentary tools available to do exactly that. The fact is, in my community, we just had a report come out today that continues to make calls with respect to dealing with people living rough, in encampments. In my community, the number of people living unsheltered has tripled in just the last three years.

We should not be in a place where this is happening, but we know why it is the case. Right now, for every one new unit of affordable housing that gets built, we are losing 15 units to the financialization of housing. Housing has increasingly become a commodity for large institutional investors to trade, rather than a place for a person to live.

This means that we continue to see large institutional investors buying up existing affordable housing, renovicting folks and increasing their rents. We wonder why that crisis is also getting worse. I do not think we would be in the place where we are right now if this Parliament, and the government in particular, were to get more serious about addressing the housing crisis.

After 30 years of underinvestment, where are we now? The fact is that we are at the bottom of the G7 when it comes to the social housing stock in this country; 3.5% of our housing is social housing. This means that, even if we were to double social housing, we would only be around the middle of the pack in the G7.

It means something after 30 years of underinvestment in communities across the country. I am thinking about someone I spoke with this past weekend, a nurse, who told me she cannot afford to live in our community as a result of the reality of the cost of housing. It means that, whether someone is a teacher, a nurse or a tradesperson, this is a generation that is looking at housing fundamentally differently than any one before it has. Why is that? In my community, since 2005, the cost of housing has gone up 275%, but wages have only gone up 42%.

Once again, if we were to truly fill in the social safety net and move as quickly on doing that as the government has moved today on meeting this March 17 deadline, we could substantively ensure that we see the funding necessary to address the affordable housing crisis. We could also address financialization, which is the fact that institutional investors have swept in to make the biggest buck possible, as quickly as possible, on the backs of some of the lowest-income people in my community.

Yes, I will be supporting Bill C-62. I think this is a really important opportunity for us all to mark that this Parliament can move quickly when it needs to on real crises that it sees. We have crises of housing, of legislated poverty for people with disabilities and of mental health, which this Parliament and the government should move a whole lot faster on.

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

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 27, 2023, consideration of the motion that Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Corinne’s Quest and the protection of children), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again in the House to speak to Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code. Introduced by my colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, the bill proposes to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code.

It is an undeniable fact that all children have the right to be protected from violence and abuse. As adults are, children are protected from a range of general criminal offences, including assault.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Health, where we study how to best support the physical, mental and emotional well-being of children across Canada. A big part of that goal is fostering healthy, safe environments in which children learn, evolve and grow.

I have also heard from parents in my riding of Richmond Hill about their concerns for their children’s safety, not only at school but also on their way to and from school. I have had one parent personally reach out to my office to ask for assistance in securing the safety of his daughter because of the ongoing harassment she faced at school. Cases such as these serve as crucial reminders for us to take action on enhancing the protection of children in our communities, in our education system and across Canada. This starts with making the necessary amendments to our current legal provisions on this matter.

Bill C-273 delves into deeply sensitive matters, including parental authority, children's rights, the government's appropriate involvement and delineating between acceptable parental discipline and instances of child abuse. I would like to start by outlining section 43 of the Criminal Code, which the bill addresses, and a few of the important perspectives we have heard on it.

The bill before us specifically addresses section 43 of the Criminal Code, which provides a defence to a criminal charge of assault in situations where parents, guardians or teachers use corporal punishment with the intent of educating or correcting a child. This means that parents can use mild physical force, such as spanking or light hitting, to discipline a child in their care. Section 43 also applies to allow parents to use physical control to restrain or remove a child in appropriate circumstances. The same provision also applies to situations where a parent or a teacher uses reasonable physical force to restrain or expel a child from a classroom when appropriate.

We know that Canadians hold a wide range of opinions regarding what should be deemed a suitable degree of physical discipline when parenting or teaching a child. These differing perspectives have sparked discussions regarding which behaviours reach a level of harm necessitating prohibition, all while recognizing that parental choices are deeply personal. I appreciate the chance offered by Bill C-273 to reflect on these significant questions.

Our government supports Bill C-273 and its crucial goal of safeguarding children from violence and abuse. Nonetheless, we have received feedback from parents, particularly those from overpoliced communities, and educators. They have expressed apprehension that they may face criminalization for reasonable actions, such as minor instances of physical intervention that do not result in harm.

It is worth noting that section 43 has been a component of the Criminal Code since 1892, remaining largely untouched. Its origins flow from the parental duty to protect and educate children. The defence typically applies in relation to assault charges, because assault is broadly defined in the Criminal Code as the non-consensual application of force. This definition captures non-consensual touching or even threats against another person, regardless of their age or whether physical harm or injury occurs.

Section 43 was enacted by Parliament to prevent the criminalization of specific behaviours by teachers, parents and caregivers. However, its current application is not designed to safeguard against abusive or harmful behaviour.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in its 2004 decision Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada, found that section 43 is consistent with sections 7, 12 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and clarified that the defence applies only to parents who impose minor corporal punishment of a transitory or trifling nature. The court also set certain parameters on the defence. For example, the defence applies only where the child is aged two to 12 and is capable of learning from the situation. No object may be used when applying force. The child’s head must not be slapped. There can be no physical harm or reasonable prospect of harm, and the adult must not be acting out of frustration or anger.

The court has restricted the scope of the defence, particularly concerning educators, who are constrained to employing judicious physical intervention solely for the purpose of upholding discipline or enforcing school regulations, such as relocating a student from a classroom or ensuring adherence to instructions. The court underscored that corporal punishment administered by teachers is unequivocally prohibited. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling nearly two decades ago, advancing research and insights into the adverse effects linked to the physical disciplining of children have led to heightened calls for the reform or repeal of section 43.

The government is steadfast in its dedication to realizing all recommendations outlined in the 2015 final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. The repeal of section 43 would constitute another stride toward fulfilling this commitment, aligning with call to action 6. This particular call is substantiated by documented instances of pervasive corporal punishment and child mistreatment by personnel within the residential school system, as highlighted in the commission's final report: “The failure to develop, implement, and monitor effective discipline sent an unspoken message that there were no real limits on what could be done to Aboriginal children within the walls of a residential school.”

Advocates for the complete repeal of section 43, including numerous civil society entities and the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, contend that the existing criminal legislation fails to afford children equal protection to that which is afforded to adults. Moreover, a growing body of medical and social science studies suggests that corporal punishment adversely impacts children. Such disciplinary measures expose children to the risks of physical harm, abuse, compromised mental well-being, strained parent-child relationships, heightened childhood aggression, anti-social conduct and increased violence and criminal behaviour as adults, thereby perpetuating cycles of violence. More than 650 organizations across Canada have endorsed the stance that physical discipline of children and youth yields no beneficial outcomes, and have called for the same protection from assault for children as that given to adults.

However, the complete repeal of section 43 raises concerns in some sectors. For instance, various religious groups, legal scholars and teacher representation bodies, including the Canadian Teachers' Federation, have expressed reservations regarding the complete repeal of section 43. They contend that a complete repeal could expose teachers and parents to potential criminal charges for minor and inconsequential physical interactions with children such as intervening in sibling disputes or relocating a student from a classroom in the interest of the safety of the other students. In the absence of a legal safeguard for parents, educators and caregivers who apply reasonable physical force to children in their care, the assault provisions may apply. This is due to the broad scope of the assault provisions, encompassing minor instances of force that do not culminate in physical harm. For instance, this could encompass scenarios such as a parent restraining a child to ensure they are properly placed in a car seat.

As I alluded to earlier, it may also have an unintended negative impact on populations that are already proven to be overpoliced and overrepresented in the criminal justice and child welfare systems, including the indigenous and Black communities, as well as members of other racialized groups.

In closing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is truly an honour to be able to stand in this place today to debate this important piece of legislation. I come here, working on things like domestic violence, interpersonal relationship violence and the protection of children, but I also wear a hat of a mother of five and a grandmother of two. I know, one can only tell by some of the wrinkles that I am a grandmother.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Oh, oh!

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thanks to Leah for always laughing at me.

Today's bill is brought—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

One cannot mention the name of a member of the House.