Debates of Feb. 13th, 2024

Criminal Code

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there are a few important points that we need to talk about first.

First of all, the Liberals did not actually complete the mandatory review that the original legislation had. If that review had happened properly, I would be willing to bet that we would not be where we are today.

The next point I want to make is that a couple of years ago the government promised $4.5 billion or maybe $6 billion for mental health. I do not remember the exact amount. I stand to be corrected, but as far as I am aware, so far, it is zero dollars. The government talks about making sure there are supports there for people with mental health, but the only support I am aware of right now is the 988 hotline that my Conservative colleague has been able to get in place.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary fails to acknowledge is the many ways in which the government's policies on euthanasia have been a profound failure.

In fact, it has been repeatedly called out, not only by those who are concerned about the impact on those struggling with mental health challenges, but also by those within the disability community, which has been nearly unanimous in their criticism of the government's approach. The disability community has identified how the approach the government is taking is undermining the services that they wish to access, and it is in fact devaluing the lives and contributions of people living with disabilities. The Liberal government and the parliamentary secretary need to acknowledge that.

I want to ask the member a question. There were some very specific constructive proposals around this in the last Conservative election platform, things such as how a doctor should not be bringing up and proposing MAID to someone who has not asked for it. At a minimum, if there is going to be a conversation about euthanasia, it should be initiated by the patient. It should not be something a doctor, someone in the health care system or someone who works for a government department, such as veterans affairs, is suggesting to them.

Does the member agree that one reasonable reform would be to say that it should be the patient bringing up the conversation, if it is a conversation they want to have, not somebody else bringing it up and suggesting death to them?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, if the euthanasia framework is going to be in place, to me, that is the only way that it should be in place. The patient needs to be the one who is initiating the conversation.

The fact that multiple government departments are on record as asking people or offering people medical assistance in dying is absolutely absurd. That speaks to all kinds of levels of failure from the Liberal government. There are people who cannot find a home who are looking for medical assistance in dying. Veterans have been offered medical assistance in dying. For somebody who could not receive health care to treat cancer, and it is not like cancer is some rare disease in this country, but this person could not receive treatment for cancer, and he chose MAID instead, even though he did not necessarily want it but because he was unable to get treatment that should normally be readily available for him.

That is ridiculous. The number of failures by the Liberal government is absolutely ridiculous.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some Conservatives seem to think the Criminal Code no longer exists. We have had these debates before. When someone nefarious is working in the health care system, they simply need to be fired and reported to the police. That can happen. The provisions are there.

I therefore invite my colleagues who know of cases like this, which are always very specific cases, to report these people to the police. Are we going to generalize to such an extent that we are going to prevent any suffering person from asserting their right to self-determination and deciding what is good for them when it comes to something as intimate as their own death?

It is odd that Conservatives are libertarians when it comes to economics, yet when it comes to moral issues, they think the government needs to be in charge.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly hope that anybody who is found to be pushing MAID on somebody when they do not actually want it would be charged. They should be charged because that is absolutely ridiculous.

I do not have any faith that that would actually happen. I think there are so many ways that people can get around that, or just say that they were simply initiating a conversation, that it was just a kind of a comment or that they thought they had consent from them to be able to talk about it. There are so many vagaries that could be introduced for people who are offered that.

At the end of the day, it comes down to this main point: The government exists, in part, to protect Canadians. It should be offering hope, not death.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to recover from that. It is a good thing I wrote down a few words, because I have a lot to say tonight. My goal is for those who do not want to listen to me to leave the chamber. They can listen to my speech again tomorrow morning when they are feeling good and ready to hear about the beauty of life and something that is part of life.

I will start with this. As we have said many times this evening, Quebec is ahead of the curve when it comes to these matters. It has been 10 years since the Quebec National Assembly passed medical assistance in dying, based on the work of the Select Committee on Dying with Dignity.

Dignity is about respect for the individual. Dignity is the foundation of the issue we are talking about. Neither partisanship nor any creation dictates who we are. We are talking about human dignity.

I hope that my colleague who just left and who had another point of view on the issue will have the opportunity to listen to the interpretation of my speech. This is a very sensitive issue. It is a social issue with serious consequences. That is why it is important. That is why the work that my colleague did and that the entire special joint committee did is important. They realized that there was a little something missing to ensure that there are no flaws in the process concerning the choice of our lives. We are talking about dying, but it is our life. Who can make decisions about our life?

It is vital to understand that society as it is today is moving forward much more quickly than legislators are. That is a fact, so we have to have the courage to act. We took an extra year. What concerns me is that we cannot know where we will be in three years. Can we get a guarantee on that promise? When my constituents talk to me about promises, they say that they will believe it when they see it. People are suffering now. We need to act now.

I am addressing all of my colleagues. Let us get this straight.

I am sorry to bother my colleagues, but what I am saying is very important. It is late and we are all going to bed soon. I am sorry, but this issue affects me deeply.

[An hon. member]

It is a matter of respect.

[Marie‑Hélène Gaudreau]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of dignity and respect.

The role of the government is not to claim to know better than an individual what is good for that individual concerning something as personal as their own death. We are talking about people enduring intolerable suffering, sometimes for decades. I am not talking about a headache. Who are we to know what is good for them? If we could agree on that at least, we could probably make a lot of progress. Maybe partisanship would be set aside for once.

Dying is part of life. The only thing a human being knows when they are born is that they are going to die. Am I telling my colleagues anything new? The answer is no.

Having the right to choose for oneself, based on one's values and level of suffering, is that possible in a free country, or in any case a very free Quebec? It is essential. In Quebec, we have a consensus. Quebec society is ready. Quebeckers have been looking at this for decades.

Just because other provinces want to intervene on this issue does not mean we have to infringe on the rights of people who are ceaselessly crying out to us for help.

My father said, “I can't live in this coffin any longer”. He had ALS. I think MPs are familiar with this disease, as one of the members suffered from it a few years ago. “My body can't take it anymore. I want to live, but I can't stand the suffering anymore.” That is the crux of the issue. There are still certain pieces missing, particularly when it comes to expertise. There are still pieces missing when it comes to ensuring there is no bias when the choice is made.

In 2015, when my father requested MAID, he was not eligible. ALS is a death sentence, but no one knows when the disease will progress to the terminal stage. His death was a long, drawn-out process.

My father always said that human beings must be respected throughout their journey. How does it feel to see someone suffer? We want to help and support them, but when we know there is no way out, no treatment, no hope, what do we do? Some will say that these people must continue to suffer and simply wait for death to come. My father used to say that he was living in his coffin. My father's illness changed my life because I witnessed it for 20 years.

I agree that we need to address the process. What is left to do? We need a few more meetings. That is what we have been hearing for the past few days. I invite members of the House to reach out to someone who has experienced this process first-hand with a loved one. That is what I went through with my father. Above all, we must avoid talking drivel. I often hear remarks that I will not repeat. Who are they to say such unbelievable things?

I will conclude my speech with the following. When people are suffering unbearably, when science does not allow them to have any hope, they must have a choice. It is a matter of solidarity, humanity, altruism and compassion. That is why, this evening, in light of everything I have just said, I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2, as no clause addresses the call for the Government of Canada, adopted unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly, to amend the Criminal Code to align with the Quebec legislation on end-of-life care by allowing advance consent requests.”.

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

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments.

The member for Louis-Hébert.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely want to thank my colleague for her speech. I believe that this is an issue where the debates are particularly instructive for members. We have been dealing with these matters in the House of Commons since 2016 and my position has changed over time, including on advance requests.

I think I still need to study the issue, but I understand that this can be useful in some cases. I have met people who could have used this. I have heard some very touching stories, even from people close to me, about people who could use this. However, on the subject of mental illness, my position has also crystallized. Many psychiatrists have told me that this track was not necessarily desirable, that it was far too difficult to gauge the irremediability of a mental illness.

My colleague mentioned the consensus in Quebec. Yes, there is one on advance requests. However, as far as mental illness as a sole reason for opening the door to medical assistance in dying goes, the National Assembly of Quebec did vote in Bill 11, in June 2023, as my colleague mentioned. It excludes mental illness because there is in fact no consensus within the medical community. Some members of that community shared their deep concerns with me about opening up MAID for this.

I would like my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as for that vote, I want my colleague to know that it came out to 57%. Also, the member should be careful when talking about provisions that exclude mental disorders. It is time to get educated. Tomorrow morning, I am going to talk about advance requests.

Let us imagine that I have been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and I choose not to put my loved ones through that. The day I am no longer able to recognize my children or I act a certain way because I do not recognize myself and have no awareness of my situation, a whole host of specialists will come on the scene. I experienced that with my father, who, incidentally, had no dementia whatsoever. Falling through all those safety nets means far more exclusion than acceptance.

When it comes to mental health, again, what we might need to do is dig a little deeper and ensure we have all the tools to reassure people. They need to know that this is not a slippery slope to culling the herd, as some people are saying.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of presumptive comments made in the House about what the people think or want. I do think it is important to just say, at the outset, that every poll that has been done, that I have ever seen, shows that a substantial majority of people in this country do not support the expansion of euthanasia to include those for whom mental health is the sole underlying condition.

I do want to ask the member about advance directives. I think there is a lot of misinformation and confusion around the issue of advance directives. The idea of advance directives implies that I could know how my future self would feel under the conditions of a particular disease or challenge. Garnett Genuis today, at age 37, could know for sure what a future version of himself would want, in terms of life or death, if he were to experience dementia, Alzheimer's or something like that.

The reality is I have no idea what that future person would want in that situation. The idea that a present person could bind a future self under different circumstances to die in a particular situation is a radical denial of autonomy. It makes my present self the dictator over my future self. A position of autonomy emphasizes the legitimacy of consent in the moment, but not the denial of autonomy in which a prior version of self binds the future self.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when members talk, they should at least have a basic knowledge of the medical context, of what is happening on the ground. Unfortunately, it is pretty clear that we do not all have the same basic knowledge. I therefore cannot answer my colleague. Does he even know what an advance request is?

I hear them talking about euthanasia. We are not talking about the same thing. We need to be on the same planet to have a dialogue. I think we need to look at this in committee. At the same time, given that Quebec is ready, we need to be allowed to do as we see fit.

All the Conservatives have to do is mind their own business. When they form government 10 years from now, they will say no. As for us, we will be free.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today because without immediate intervention by Parliament, the expansion of medical assistance in dying to individuals whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder will come into force on March 17. That is only a few weeks away, at a time when this country is experiencing a mental health crisis, the isolation of seniors, toxic drugs poisoning people in communities across Canada, inadequate OAS increases and still, unfortunately, and hard to imagine, no Canada disability benefit in place for people living with disabilities who are also living in poverty. The necessary safety social nets are missing, yet we are having a debate about an extension to medical assistance in dying.

Why is the fact that the social safety net not in place so important? People in Canada deserve the dignity to live healthy lives and to live lives where they are not in poverty.

I want to talk about the Canada disability benefit because the budget is coming. The next budget is coming very soon, and it is the expectation of the NDP and the expectation of Canadians that the Liberal government will live up to its commitment, its promise made in 2015, that there would be a Canada disability benefit. Too many people in the disability community are waiting for this disability benefit to lift them out of poverty. When I say too many, even one is too many.

I am encouraging the Liberal government, which I know is listening closely to this debate, to actually do something and to get the Canada disability benefit into the pockets of the people who need it in this country so that we can start to have serious conversations about how to advance medical assistance in dying. We certainly cannot do it in the middle of a mental health crisis, while our communities are being poisoned by toxic drugs and while people living in poverty with a disability have no social safety net and no reliable income.

I also think it is a disgrace, at this point in time, that the Liberal government is not considering the impacts of these clawbacks on persons with disabilities and anyone who is living on the poverty line, who are relying on social benefits, which they are entitled to, from the federal government, which are being rolled back. I think specifically about CERB at this point in time. We know that many Canadians, in good faith, applied for the CERB and got the CERB. We now have a federal government that has decided it is a good idea to start targeting people already living in poverty to get their CERB back.

They know these people are living in poverty. They know the incomes of these people and they continue to go after them. At the same time, they are giving free rides to corporate CEOs who are taking home millions of dollars a year in salaries and bonuses, and not looking at the way they took wage subsidies and gave them away to their shareholders and in their own bonus packages.

I think about Air Canada specifically. The government decided to give it a bailout during the pandemic. Air Canada said that the government could have it back because the government is not allowing it to give it to its executives as bonuses. These are the choices that the federal government is making. It is giving CEOs and large corporations the regular free ride while targeting people living in poverty.

Today, I was reading the report from the federal housing advocate. Human rights are being violated right now. We are talking about the expansion of MAID for mental illness as the sole condition, and I put a big blame on the Conservatives here because I have been sitting in a number of studies in HUMA, on housing. We know that the Conservatives walked away and lost 800,000 units of affordable housing in this country.

Conservatives are the instigators of the problem that is manifesting on the ground right now that the Liberals did not fix when they came into power. The housing advocate said that Canadians' human rights are being violated because they do not have access to housing. It is despicable. If our country cannot use our natural resources to make sure that people are not living in tents outside the airport in Vancouver, that is totally unacceptable. I blame both the Conservatives and the Liberals because they know what has been happening, that it has been happening for decades and they have done nothing about it.

The housing advocate told the government that a national encampment response plan needs to be in place by August 31. I am sorry to say that, based on the speed at which the Liberal government moves, that is highly unlikely. I hope it takes up the challenge from the federal housing advocate, because no one should have to live in an encampment without access to clean water, waste removal and garbage pickup. We would think the federal government could at least support cities with respect to garbage pickup so people have access to clean spaces when they are forced into a tent encampment. I would ask the Prime Minister and any of the Liberal MPs to walk down Wellington Street, the ByWard Market or Sparks Street. They walk by these people every single day and do nothing.

We know that the health ministers across the country are concerned about this bill before us today. We also know the Liberal government is playing snail mail on pharmacare, the pharmacare that can help people with their mental health and help people take their medication properly so they can be healthy. The Liberal government has decided that is something that is going to snail along. Again, the deadline is very short on that.

We are talking about these social safety net pieces the Liberal government is moving at a snail's pace on, and the Conservatives are to blame for the conditions of the housing market and housing for people in this country right now. I want to highlight that Conservatives also voted against every single social program and initiative that came out in the fall economic statement and the budget. They say that they care about people; meanwhile, they are voting against everything that would help people, including food. They have decided they do not want to support a national school food program. How do we expect to have debates that matter to people in Canada when we cannot make sure that kids are fed and people live in homes? That is what the Liberals and Conservatives have done.

I want to read something that I received from a mental health worker in my riding who reached out to me. She said, “I implore the government to reconsider this expansion...and to engage in a meaningful dialogue with mental health professionals to safeguard the well-being of...Canadians, especially the most vulnerable”.

I implore the Liberal government, and the Conservatives who continue to try to stall social programs and initiatives the NDP is working to advance in this House, to take this seriously. We know that, as we stand here in this House today having this debate, we have a toxic drug supply in this country that people are reaching out to because they do not have the medications they can afford as there is not a national pharmacare program in this country.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that many Canadians are struggling right now. I would challenge her to reconsider her participation in the confidence and supply agreement with the government as a result. Maybe we will have to agree to disagree on whether more federal spending on federal bureaucracy, sticking its nose into provincial jurisdiction, is actually going to improve the lives of, for instance, kids who are hungry in schools.

I want to ask the member about the bill before us, Bill C-62, and the situation around euthanasia and facilitated suicide in Canada. Because of the challenges we are seeing, with people facing pressure and people being offered or having euthanasia pushed on them, in our last election platform, Conservatives proposed that we would protect the right of patients to choose to receive care in a MAID-free environment. That is, by protecting the conscience rights of physicians and health care institutions, we would preserve the right of patients to choose to be in a hospice or a health care facility where they know they would be offered life-affirming care.

There are many Canadians, I think, who want that. They do not appreciate being in a situation where government bureaucrats, health care officials or bureaucrats in other departments are pushing, promoting or encouraging them to choose a path they do not want to take.

Does the NDP support our proposal to protect the right of patients to choose to receive care in euthanasia-free or MAID-free spaces?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra, I can tell colleagues that, every day, when I come to this House, I work for the residents of my community. Just last week, there was an announcement of $25 million from the housing accelerator fund that came into my riding. I worked on that in conjunction with the HUMA committee and as a part of the confidence and supply agreement. It would not have happened if the NDP were not working and forcing the government.

What the Conservatives did was to have a peaceful protester physically assaulted, roughed up, when the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party, came to my riding. It was totally unacceptable for their leader to come to my riding and physically have their people manhandle someone.

I did not appreciate it and—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That is an outrageous accusation. I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we maintain the respect and decorum that should be accorded this place. For the member to make accusations as she just did not only demeans the Leader of the Opposition but also discourages members in this place from being able to—

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

I appreciate the help, but that is descending into debate. I would also suggest to people here this evening to stick to the bill at hand, Bill C-62, which we are counting down to really quickly.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Louis-Hébert.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the parliamentary secretary. He is used to this, but I think he can make room for others.

I fully agree with my colleague on many things. We need more mental health resources and more access to care. There are several socio-economic factors that can exacerbate mental illness.

As far as today's bill is concerned, I would like us to look at things from another angle. Let us look at the genesis of what brought us to include mental illness as grounds to request medical assistance in dying. It came from a Senate amendment that, in my opinion, should not have been accepted by the government. I do not want to make any assumptions, but we are hearing rumours that senators might try to block what could be the will of the House to delay this for three years, as Bill C‑62 seeks to do.

What is my colleague's opinion about the role the Senate should play with respect to the House, whose members are duly elected to make decisions?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we need to do here is to start thinking about the future and start reacting to what needs to be done now. We have a very small window to save people from this expansion.

We need to get social programs in place before we do any more expansions on this type of program.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we need to move quickly to save people. I am all in favour of implementing social programs to save people, but does the member have a different point of view from the Conservatives right now? If we invest in social programs, will people all of a sudden get relief after 30 years of suffering and inadequate treatment?

The accessibility of frontline services is another debate. How can we shut down debate today by claiming that, if ever we move forward with expanding MAID eligibility to people with mental disorders, then that would be an affront to people's integrity, when the fact is that MAID is voluntary? What is more, there are people who are going to examine the request and, if a person is suicidal or receiving care for the first time, then they will not have access to medical assistance in dying.

I am trying hard to make people understand that just because a person makes a request does not mean that they will be eligible. When the member says things like that, how does she think that her point of view differs from what we have been hearing from the Conservatives today?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will just go back to the comment from one of my residents who said that they are imploring “the government to reconsider this expansion...and to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the mental health professionals to safeguard the well-being of...Canadians, especially the most vulnerable”.

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

There being no further members rising for debate, pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.

If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

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

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 14, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 10:09, pursuant to an order made earlier today, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 10:09 p.m.)