Debates of Feb. 13th, 2024

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

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, can the member share a bit more around the decision to use time allocation? Why is it important that we get this legislation put through? What are the impacts on people in our communities if we do not?

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

Madam Speaker, it is not an easy choice. I was in this place in the Harper years, when time allocation started to be used on every single bill. In those days, the Liberals were against it, as I was. Things change. Whoever is in power thinks that the tools that were used by the last government, which they used to decry, are okay if they are efficient for getting things done, because might makes right. However, it is and always will be wrong, whether the Conservatives or the Liberals use it.

This time, we are up against it. We have no choice. We are responsible grown-ups. We have to get this bill through so that we do not have a default reality that none of us would vote for.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, the decisions made in this place have a direct impact on the lives of Canadians. That impact can be no greater than when it is a matter of life or death, and this is exactly the case with this piece of legislation. As members of Parliament, we have a duty to serve in the best interests of Canadians; this duty must extend to the protection of the most vulnerable in society.

I should note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Portage—Lisgar.

The expansion of medically assisted death to those suffering from mental illness is dangerous and, simply, reckless. It is inevitable that the expansion of MAID to those suffering solely from a mental illness would result in the deaths of Canadians who could have gotten better. This is not to say that those with mental illness should be left alone to suffer. Recovery is possible, and we cannot give up on these individuals and their loved ones. Canadians suffering from mental illness need and deserve support and treatment. They may feel that their situation is hopeless, but the antidote is hope, not death. They deserve government policy and a health care system that are compassionate and responsive to their needs. Where there are gaps or shortfalls in our care system, we should prioritize working alongside our provincial partners to address them. That, not expanding MAID, should be the priority.

The Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying heard loud and clear from the mental health experts and advocates that the planned expansion of MAID was dangerous. The current Liberal government has already had to introduce eleventh-hour legislation to delay the expansion of MAID by one year from the date that it had arbitrarily set. We find ourselves, ironically, now in the same position as we were in last year. Bill C-62, once again, would only offer a temporary delay in the expansion of MAID to persons suffering from mental illness. The risks and dangers that exist today would continue to exist in three years. However, the Liberal government is intent on its expansion.

It is truly frightening to see that the Liberal government wants to continue to expand the access to MAID, despite clear concerns about safeguards of vulnerable people. The Liberals' careless approach was already evident when the Liberal government decided not to appeal the Truchon ruling and, instead, introduced legislation that went much further than the ruling had required.

What we have seen repeatedly from the current Liberal government is the willingness to offer MAID to more and more Canadians, without prioritizing supports or treatment. This continues to be the case with those in the end stages of life. Through pain management and psychological, emotional and practical supports, palliative and hospice care provides relief from pain, stress and symptoms of serious illness. Palliative care has proven to improve the quality of life not only for the patient but also for their family. However, access to this is not universal here in Canada.

The government's own report on the state of palliative care in Canada, released this past December, confirms that access to palliative care is indeed not universal. We do not have the necessary safeguards in place to protect vulnerable Canadians when access to MAID is more universal than access to palliative care is. When Canadians suffering from serious illness do not have access to appropriate care, they can be left feeling hopeless. Personal autonomy is not increased when a person feels as though they have no other choice.

When the current Liberal government removed the “reasonably foreseeable death” clause from the MAID framework, it opened up to persons with disabilities who are not close to death. Disability advocates raised alarm bells with this decision, and the news stories that have emerged in recent years have underscored the risks and the danger in that decision. Reports showing that poverty, not pain, is driving Canadians with disabilities to consider assisted death are truly heartbreaking.

For persons with disabilities, the pressures of the cost of living crisis are compounded. Their basic living costs are generally much more significant. As the prices go up on everything, their costs are even greater. It is unacceptable that there are persons with disabilities turning to MAID because of their cost of living situation.

This NDP-Liberal government's inflationary spending and taxes are fuelling the affordability crisis in this country, and what is even more shameful is that, despite the pain and suffering it is causing Canadians, there has been no course correction for this costly coalition. It has continued to mismanage tax dollars. It is intent on quadrupling the carbon tax, which is increasing the cost of just about everything.

Let us not forget that not a single disability payment has gone out to those who want it and have been asking for it. Bill C-22 was sped through the parliamentary process, but those who are desperate for financial assistance are still waiting.

The affordability crisis is continuing to surge across the country, and it is further putting persons with disabilities in a vulnerable position. Medically assisted death should not be more readily available to persons with disabilities than the supports and accommodations they need to live a full, healthy and dignified life.

Repeated reports that Canadians are being offered medically assisted death without first requesting it is also very alarming. It suggests that safeguards have not been put in place to ensure that vulnerable people are not being pressured or coerced into seeking medically assisted death. No person should feel that the health care system, the infrastructure that is meant to provide care and support, sees no value in their lives.

There are serious concerns with the existing MAID framework and the framework's ability to protect the most vulnerable in our communities. These are concerns that are not being addressed by the Liberal government and that ultimately should be the priority of the government on an issue such as medically assisted death. When the risks and concerns that exist with the current framework are already proven to be warranted, we should certainly heed the clear warnings against its expansion.

Experts have said that it is impossible to predict in any legitimate way that mental illness is irremediable. This means that individuals suffering solely from mental illness can recover and can improve. Their mental health state is not destitute nor without hope. If medical assistance in dying is offered to persons suffering solely from mental illness, it is inevitable that vulnerable Canadians will die who could have gotten better.

Experts have also made it clear that it is difficult for clinicians to distinguish between a rational MAID request and one motivated by suicidal thoughts. Persons with mental illness are already disproportionately affected by suicide and suicidal ideation. To extend access to medically assisted death to this group of individuals contradicts and undermines suicide prevention efforts. Every single person's life has value and purpose. It is not acceptable to have government policies in place that devalue the life of a person, and the Liberal government's intention to expand access to MAID fails individuals suffering from mental illness in this country.

Whether it happens in March of this year or in three years, the expansion of MAID will still be dangerous and reckless. The delayed expansion of MAID will ultimately still fail vulnerable Canadians. Bill C-62 does not go far enough to protect those suffering with mental illness. The Prime Minister must immediately and permanently halt the expansion of medical assistance in dying to persons with mental illness. We cannot give up on an individual who is suffering. They deserve support and treatment, not death.

Common-sense Conservatives know that recovery is possible for persons suffering from mental illness. We do not support policies that abandon people when they are in their most vulnerable state. Death is not a treatment for suffering. We will stand with them and their loved ones. Above all else, when we consider medically assisted death, we must be gripped by a resolve to protect the most vulnerable because, in matters of life and death, there is simply no room for error.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, and I realized there was a lot of personal input and a lot of regard for the vulnerable.

Does she not agree, as I had to come to accept that, regardless of my personal feelings, beliefs, values or the choices I would make for myself, and given the safeguards that were put in place with successive legislation, Canadians are deserving of having that choice for themselves?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, in my experience with social work, being in a hospital setting and having the opportunity to be with patients in the most difficult times, such as their end of life, or during palliative and hospice care, as difficult and as hard as those situations are, the opportunity for family reconciliation is amazing. The fact that we would just rob Canadians of allowing their families to reconcile is just a shame.

There are accounts of Canadians being coerced and being offered MAID when there are not proper supports, such as psychiatrists or psychologists, there to help them. It is absolutely unacceptable.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have been debating this bill for several days, or several years, even. Sometimes, I get the impression that people are not seeking out the most up-to-date information so we can have an enlightened debate.

Earlier, I heard some stereotypes, perceptions and impressions that have no place in this debate. I would like to ask if my hon. colleague is aware that this is not about giving or offering medical assistance in dying to someone who is in a state of distress and contemplating suicide. She talked about this a lot in her speech, but this would not happen.

I wonder if she is aware of this and if she has read the report. Has she really done enough research to debate this issue in an intellectually rigorous and consistent manner?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I just want to mention Kathrin Mentler. She is 37 and, as described in an article, she:

lives with chronic depression and suicidality, both of which she says were exacerbated by a traumatic event early this year....

Ms. Mentler says a clinician told her there would be long waits to see a psychiatrist and that the health care system is “broken”. That was followed by a jarring question: “Have you considered MAID?”

I will listen to the Canadians who have been coerced, who have had it suggested to them that their life is devalued and that they are not wanted, and who have been offered MAID. It does happen, and I would suggest all members in the House do their research on all sides of the subject.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I did not realize until the member's speech today that she was a social worker prior to becoming a member of Parliament. I worked in mental health and addictions prior to become a member of Parliament as well.

Can the member share her reflections on what is at the root of this discussion, which is the importance of those most vulnerable in our communities accessing the supports they need and deserve? Can she reflect on the importance of us having the mental health transfers that were promised in the last election, as well as housing and wraparound supports? What are her reflections now that she is in this position as a member of Parliament?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think society is going to a place where we are devaluing people. It is easier for somebody to suggest medical assistance in dying than to actually take the time to help. Sure, we can have a conversation on what the municipal and provincial roles in that are and the wraparound services. However, this comes down to treating humans with dignity and value, and giving them a hand up. It is not suggesting that their life is not really worth it, that everything is broken, and to just book them in at 2:00 p.m. on Friday to end it all. That is disgusting, and society needs to do better.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, before I give my speech on this very important topic, I would like to quickly comment on the horrific incident we faced in southern Manitoba over the weekend with the tragic loss of life of two young women and three children. As a father, it is tough to fathom the loss of a child and the impacts it would have on that family's loved ones and friends. It would impact everyone in their lives and, frankly, the broader community.

My heart goes out to those of Carman and the surrounding area, and to the friends, families and loved ones of the victims of this horrific incident. It is devastating news for a small community like that, where folks know their neighbours and look out for each other, so I pray for strength during a very dark and incredibly difficult time for our community.

To the issue at hand, we are more than a month away from the Liberal government implementing medical assistance in dying for those who suffer from a mental illness. I believe this is heartless, reckless and immoral. Every Canadian has worth, and I, for one, will never give up on those who need help.

Never have I seen a government mismanage an issue as critical as this, and while it may be unpleasant for my Liberal colleagues to hear, I believe they must be held to account. Due to the incredibly serious nature of this issue, there is a lot to be answered for. How could the Prime Minister let this happen and let it get to this point? How could the government be so irresponsible and negligent?

From day one, our Conservative team in Parliament has been sounding the alarm bell, but we were ignored, and we now find ourselves in an emergency. I believe it is ludicrous that it took the outcry of countless medical professionals to get the Liberals to reverse course on this matter. Witness after witness testified to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying about the dangers of pressing ahead with this plan.

Why did the Prime Minister accept the last-minute amendments put forward by the Senate that dramatically changed the legislative framework for MAID? There was no parliamentary study. There was no consultation with experts or affected groups and no evidence that MAID for mental illness could be implemented safely and appropriately. When the Liberals' original bill, Bill C-7, was put before MPs, at no time did it contain any language about creating a pathway for MAID for those with mental illnesses. In fact, it explicitly ruled that out in its entirety.

The original proposed amendment to the Criminal Code specified that “persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness are not eligible for medical assistance in dying”. The then Minister of Justice said, “there is no consensus among experts on whether and how to proceed with MAID on the basis of mental illness alone.” The minister then did a 180° and became a proponent of this disastrous course. Due to his actions, and the Prime Minister's rubber-stamping of the those Senate amendments, we are where we are today.

This is now the second time the Liberals have had to delay the implementation of their reckless legislation. There will never be a consensus from mental health experts that the government should implement MAID for those who are suffering from a mental illness, and if the Liberals will not listen to me, I implore them to listen to their own expert panel on MAID and mental illness, when it said it is implausible to determine whether a mental disorder is incurable.

The panel's report said, “There is limited knowledge about the long-term prognosis for many conditions, and it is difficult, if not impossible, for clinicians to make accurate predictions about the future for an individual patient.” That was echoed by the heads of psychiatry departments of all 17 medical schools, who called on the Liberals to stop this plan from being implemented on March 17.

I completely agree with these experts, but not only should we pause this law from being implemented, we need to permanently end it once and for all. Let me be perfectly clear. Instead of delaying, the government needs to introduce a bill to ensure that it never happens.

When I ran to become a member of Parliament, this was a key plank of my platform. I pledged to do everything I could to stop the Liberals from ever implementing this dangerous idea, and the sad reality is that the Prime Minister—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

May I interrupt the hon. member? There is a lot of noise, and I am not sure if the noise is coming from individuals in the hall outside. I will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to go check that out.

I know people are probably filing in, but it is getting a little loud, and we want to make sure we hear what the hon. member has to contribute.

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I said, the sad reality is that the Prime Minister only wants to delay this implementation. Even the Liberal minister in charge of mental health said last week that her government was not debating if but when this law should proceed. My answer is never. It should under no circumstances proceed.

Instead of being in a position where the Liberals keep introducing legislation to postpone this terrible policy, it will take a new Conservative government to resolve this issue once and for all.

I want to remind all MPs in the House that we could have dealt with this issue not too long ago. My Conservative colleague, the member for Abbotsford, introduced a private member's bill that would have stopped this from ever happening. Almost everything we are discussing today would have been dealt with by that bill. Sure enough, the Prime Minister and almost every Liberal MP voted against it.

As for my colleagues, who seem unconcerned about the expansion of MAID, let me try to persuade them otherwise. There is no reasonable way to establish a legal framework to identify which mental illnesses are incurable. Every person is different and every circumstance is unique. There are variables such as people's economic situation, their support system and where they live that have an impact.

Unfortunately, in rural Canada, access to mental health and addictions services are often abysmal. If people are fortunate enough to live in a community that does have access to mental health services, there is a good chance they will have a lengthy wait time ahead of them. If people make the very difficult decision to seek help and go looking for it, I am embarrassed to say that it can take days, if not weeks, for them to get that help.

It is understandable how people with a mental illness, who have lost all hope, can think this way because they cannot access the treatment and support they need. We all know someone in our lives who has struggled. We also know that this does not define the person. Due to the stigma slowly receding, more and more people are finally seeking the help they need.

The other good news is that mental health research and advances have come a long way in helping treat those with a mental illness. Sometimes it can take years of treatment, even a lifetime's worth, but with the right supports and help, people can regain control of their lives. I am raising this because, in accordance with the law, there is a prerequisite that someone must suffer from a grievous and incurable medical condition to be eligible for MAID.

On the first part, there is no doubt that people suffering from mental illness are in a grievous condition at times. If they cannot get the help they need, it can quickly get out of control. As to the second part, it is no wonder why people think their mental illness is incurable. If they cannot access mental health supports, services and treatments, it must feel like they will never get better.

The Liberals love to talk about compassion, so as I wrap up my comments, let me tell the House the compassionate thing to do.

First, we need to permanently suspend, not delay, MAID for those whose sole underlying condition is mental illness.

Second, we need to better our services for those who are most vulnerable in our society. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has yet to deliver on its campaign promise of implementing a mental health transfer for the provinces. Instead of improving access to mental health services, all people are hearing is that the government is making it easier for them to choose death.

Finally, we need the Liberals to understand that there is a cost-of-living crisis. Far too often, we have seen them ignore the needs of struggling Canadians. There have even been instances of people coming forward to say that they feel MAID is their only choice because they cannot afford to live any more.

In St. Catharines, a man said that he wanted to start the process of applying for MAID, not because he wants to die but because social supports are failing him and he fears he may have no other choice. The CEO of the Mississauga food bank has said that people are coming into her facility asking not for food but for help to end their lives, not because they are sick but because they cannot afford to eat.

I will proudly continue to fight for the most vulnerable in our society and for common sense. Today, that means we are calling for the suspension of MAID for those suffering with mental illness.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, as I did with the previous speaker. I am curious, because there seems to be an introduction of partisan ideology in this discussion, which is not warranted. In fact, it was completely refuted by an earlier Conservative speaker, who I greatly appreciate, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

I will ask my colleague the same question that I have asked others. Regardless of our personal beliefs, values and how much we may not like the idea of medical assistance in dying, can we not accord other Canadians the same rights, the same choices and, indeed, how those choices will help those people have agency in their own lives? Can we not give them that same choice?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I believe the stories of folks who are struggling to such a point that they are even considering this. The fact that we are looking at making this an available option instead of treatment, instead of getting them the services they need, is so disappointing.

To the second part of your question, this started as medical assistance in dying. A Supreme Court decision forced Parliament to make a decision to set up a framework. We seem to have evolved to medical assistance in suicide. From my personal perspective, I want to fight for those who are facing real challenges and give them the hope they need so they can continue to live and improve their quality of life, not end it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that he is to address all questions and comments through the Chair, not directly to the members.

The hon. member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to invite my colleagues in the Conservative Party and its Quebec caucus to take inspiration from what happened in Quebec during the debate on medical assistance in dying. We discussed it calmly and in a non-partisan manner. We looked at the data and let the science guide us.

In his speech, my colleague insinuated that Quebeckers and Canadians could request medical assistance in dying because they were hungry or because they could not make ends meet. Unfortunately, that is mere demagogy. My colleagues are using misinformation, in other words, inaccurate information, to mislead Canadians and Quebeckers, perhaps at the prompting of the religious right, which I strongly suspect controls the Conservative caucus.

I will simply ask my colleague whether he spoke to his fellow caucus members from Quebec to determine what exactly Quebec thinks about medical assistance in dying.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, the important part to deal with here is that we are worried, and have been for some time, about the framework and those restrictions and what this slippery slope could lead to. It is about having a robust framework to ensure that those individuals cannot be taken advantage of or use the system in an unfortunate way.

This is the Parliament of Canada. We are dealing with the federal Criminal Code that impacts all provinces. When provinces have come forward and said that they are not ready to implement such a system or when so many stakeholders say that they are opposed to this, I will listen to the people across the country, whatever province they are from.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, once again, while I agree this time with the Conservatives that extending medical assistance in dying to those who have mental disorders as the sole underlying condition is very problematic and should not happen, I cannot understand the Conservatives not supporting moving quickly with the bill we have in front of us, because we face a deadline for when this will come into effect if we do not act.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with that. I cannot believe that it has come to this. We have heard testimony for months and years now about how this amendment that the government, for some reason, accepted from the Senate would be problematic. For some reason, the Liberal government has decided to dilly-dally to a point in which we have emergency legislation, days away from this coming into force. I put this squarely at the feet of the Liberal government.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not too sure if the member actually understood the question that was just posed to him. It points out a major issue within the Conservative Party. The Conservatives have said that they do not support it, yet they did not vote in favour of the motion that ultimately, by it passage, will guarantee that this motion is able to pass Bill C-62.

What is the essence of Bill C-62? It is to provide a three-year waiting period, so the concern that he has does not take effect come March 17 this year. If this legislation does not pass, what the Conservatives are complaining about will actually turn into a reality. One would think that they would understand that. I can appreciate that a majority, in listening to the discussion, is of the same opinion as the member across the way. If they support what they say, then they should support Bill C-62. If they do not vote for Bill C-62 and the bill does not pass, there will be no three-year extension.

I am very disappointed in the manner in which this issue is being debated. It is a very serious issue. I remind members that the reason we have the debate today is because of a Supreme Court of Canada decision back in 2015, which the then prime minister Stephen Harper did not act upon. That was back in early 2015.

After the 2015 general election, when we assumed office in November 2015, one of the first things we did was look at the legislative agenda. We did some positive things, but one of the things we had to deal with was the Supreme Court of Canada decision, which the Conservatives actually ignored. That meant we had to bring in MAID legislation. It was not an option.

Is there a member of the Conservative Party today who would stand up and say that there was an actual option, that we did not have to respect the Charter of Rights, the rights that are guaranteed to Canadians from coast to coast to coast?

If one reflects on the debates that took place back then, it is quite the opposite with respect to what we are witnessing today. Back then—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With closure having been moved on this, the member has spoken for 70 minutes. He is taking up time. He is suppressing other members from having the opportunity and instead playing politics on a matter that is literally life and death. He should be ashamed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is not a point of order. I would ask members that when they raise points of order to please ensure it is a point of order.

The hon. member has only been speaking for four minutes at this point. He still has 16 minutes and hon. members will have 10 minutes for questions and comments. I would ask members to please wait to ask questions or to make comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, members of the Conservative Party might not like what I have to say, but it is the truth, and sometimes the truth hurts. If we go back to the original debates in May, we would find a great deal more compassion being expressed on the floor of the House of Commons, on all sides. Whether they were Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats or any others, members demonstrated very clearly the difficulty of what Parliament had to do in bringing in MAID to respect the Supreme Court of Canada decision. Today during the debate, we witnessed the leader of the Conservative Party standing on a point of order on something completely irrelevant to the debate, to attempt to table a document. Why did he? He just could not wait until question period, I guess, which begins after statements by members that start in about 15 or 20 minutes.

We should listen to what some of the Conservative speeches have been about. Some Conservatives, the last couple in particular, have stood in their places and given a false impression that the legislation would be like suicide on demand. The member for Battlefords—Lloydminster said that today someone feeling depressed due to mental health issues could go to a doctor and book an appointment to commit suicide, with the government's support, on Friday. Members of the Conservative Party are spreading misinformation on such a sensitive issue. These are very difficult things that Canadians have to deal with every day.

Yesterday the member for Cumberland—Colchester referred to 12,000 or 13,000 people being killed in a very ad lib fashion, implying that the legislation just allows people to be killed. From my perspective, the decision to access MAID is not easy; it is a very difficult one. Family members and individuals are experiencing some very difficult times in dealing with a real-life situation. Conservatives, yesterday and today, are virtually making a mockery of it and spreading misinformation on such an important issue. What happened to the compassion of 2015-16 and even 2017? At that time, there seemed to be a sense in the chamber that, yes, at times there are going to be disagreements if members feel very passionate about an issue, as they should, but there was also a much higher sense of co-operation as members shared the experiences they were being told about by their constituents.

The member for Portage—Lisgar said that people are going to food banks and are thinking of committing suicide because of the cost of living. There are a number of things that come to my mind that speak to the manner in which individuals across the way make those types of stupid statements. That is, quite frankly, what they are; they are not legitimate contributions, such as discussion about supports and services would be, to the debate on such an important issue that the House is having to address.

In the debates taking place in 2015-16, we heard a great deal about issues like hospice and palliative care. We wanted to ensure that MAID legislation would not in any way be utilized as a direct result of not having proper services and systems in place to provide assurances to those individuals who were feeling so compelled to actually access MAID. Those are the types of things that I think really contributed a great deal back then.

Today, in contrast, Conservatives will say, “What about the $4.5 billion that the Liberal Party made a commitment to?” Members are right in that there was a substantial commitment by the government to deal with the issue of mental health, and the commitment was significant: several billions of dollars over five years. It is one of the reasons that the health care agreements we have put into place, which were highlighted last year, of just under $200 billion over 10 years, are to support health care not only today but also in future generations that will benefit by that sort of investment. Furthermore, the Minister of Health is working with provinces, coming up with agreements that deal with things like mental health and services. We recognize how important it is to ensure that these services are being supported.

Unlike a number of members from the Conservative Party, and I do not want to label them all, at least not at this point, this is a government that has continued to work with, in particular, provincial jurisdictions and other stakeholders in different forums in order to provide assurances that the people who are accessing MAID are, in fact, being informed in a very tangible way of the types of services available. In no way whatsoever is it as simple as their just saying, “I want this and I will get it”, and then two days later receiving it. We can look at the amount of public attention and debate that has taken place on issues such as palliative and hospice care since the MAID introduction, which I believe have been greatly enhanced.

I would like to think that provinces, which are ultimately responsible for the public administration of health care services, have taken note and understand that they too have a responsibility because they are the ones delivering the services that Canadians expect. The federal government has recognized that by supporting things such as the encouragement of long-term care standards and by providing substantial finances to ensure that provinces are better able to meet the demands on health care services. With respect to what I said earlier in regard to mental health, there are serious commitments that we continue to live up to and work on with other jurisdictions.

I have confidence, as I indicated yesterday, in the health care professionals, the social workers and the other individuals who have the expertise and confidence in the individual who feels that MAID might be the avenue for them to pursue. There is a great deal of effort put into every situation, and I have confidence in the system.

Members can correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot recall one province or premier in Canada that has clearly said that MAID is not working. The provinces are asking for the three-year extension in one aspect of MAID: where mental health is the sole reason for the request. The issue of the sole underlying medical condition being a mental illness was added to the original MAID legislation, then brought in as a form of legislation and allowed a period for provinces and jurisdictions to have time to get what is necessary in place so Canadians could be served.

We then found that the provinces required more time. There were a number of provincial governments not saying to get rid of MAID, but rather saying that they needed more time for the implementation of that aspect of it. That is in essence why we have the legislation that we have before us today.

However, if we listen to members of the Conservative Party, we will find that they give no indication of supporting Bill C-62. It will be interesting to see how they actually vote. Logically, I would think they would vote in favour of the bill. If they do not vote in favour of Bill C-62, and, for whatever reasons, the legislation were not to pass, ultimately the criterion of sole underlying medical condition of mental illness would take effect on March 17 of this year. Therefore, it is important that members, no matter what side of the debate they happen to be on, would be in favour of the legislation because it is a direct response to what is being asked of the Government of Canada by our partners that are ultimately responsible for administering the legislation.

Members opposite will often try to say that it is up to the government. It is important to highlight what I mentioned at the very beginning: The reason we have MAID legislation today is that in 2015, the Carter decision by the Supreme Court in essence said we had to bring it in. There was no choice, if, of course, we respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will repeat what I said yesterday: There was a great deal of consultation, literally hundreds of hours of different types of meetings, including standing committees, chamber debate, outside meetings in ridings, canvassing and petitions. Even though there were all sorts of mechanisms to provide input, at the end of the day, I believe that the legislation met a threshold to, in good part, deal with the concerns of the Supreme Court of Canada and to respect the Charter of Rights.

That was followed by a decision in appeal court in Quebec giving us another obligation to improve the legislation and that is exactly what we did.

We continue today to look for ways to improve the legislation. I believe it is a reflection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If members of the Conservative caucus are saying that they do not support the MAID legislation, then I would question whether they actually support the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would further add that the leader of the Conservative Party's general attitude—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

We have time for a 15-second question.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

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

Mr. Speaker, during the speech, we heard some things that ought to be corrected.

The member alleged that some members on this side of the House were spreading disinformation, which is completely false. I will prove it—