Debates of Feb. 13th, 2024

Criminal Code

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to wish my daughter Naomie a happy second birthday and tell her that mommy loves her very much. It is a bit in keeping with the theme of the bill before us, since we are talking about children, and I am certain she is paying close attention right now.

Some bills are tricky to explain, especially when they are about children, and particularly given that, in Quebec, we are crazy about our kids. That being said, I want to state from the outset that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-273 to prevent it from being studied in committee. I will begin by explaining why we made this decision. I will then describe the context surrounding this bill and, finally, I will explain why it is a bad idea masquerading as a good one.

First of all, the Bloc Québécois is once again advocating a balanced position on this sensitive issue. We are going to be the adults in the room. As such, we believe that the law must include reasonable defence mechanisms to help maintain public confidence in our rule of law.

The bill essentially aims to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code, which provides a defence to parents as well as teachers if they use reasonable force to correct a child. This could be described as child discipline and parental discipline.

Section 43 states, “Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.” That is clearly stated.

Second, as we have seen in the media, a movement has taken off in recent years. This movement calls for an end to all forms of corporal punishment of children and young people, including the repeal of section 43 of the Criminal Code. A number of stakeholders and groups like Corinne's Quest have expressed their support for the idea that parliamentarians should remove this provision from the legal framework once and for all. Initiatives with that goal have been introduced in the House of Commons and the Senate as recently as 2022.

It is important to recall that, in 2004, the Supreme Court considered the issue and upheld the constitutionality of section 43. It can be used as a defence to charges of assaulting a child. To avoid legal pitfalls, we believe it remains relevant to the exercise of parental or teaching authority, as long as it is reasonable.

In Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada, the highest court interpreted section 43 of the Criminal Code. Section 43 was challenged on the basis of sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantee the right to security of the person and the right to equality respectively, but it was not struck down because the protection it offers is limited. As a result, it does not exclude the possibility of charges being brought and possibly even criminal sanctions being imposed when excessive force is used against a child.

As soon as that force becomes anything more than transitory or trifling force to control the behaviour of a child or as soon as it becomes harmful or degrading for the child, then the protection offered under section 43 no longer applies and the behaviour in question can be considered criminal. This protection is exercised reasonably and the circumstances are taken into account. The Supreme Court found that force may not involve objects, such as rulers or belts, and it may not be applied to the child's head.

The removal of section 43 from the Criminal Code would mean criminalizing the normal behaviour of parents who are trying to put their child to bed and of teachers who have to physically control a child to remove them from the classroom or take them out of a dangerous situation, such as a fight.

Without a protection mechanism, prosecutors can still exercise their discretion to prosecute or not. However, once charged, parents and teachers would lose legal recognition of the educational role they play, which could justify these behaviours. Psychology has shown that removing this legal recognition can have consequences.

Third, the NDP's Bill C‑273 is an all-or-nothing proposal: either repeal section 43 or not. The fact that the NDP is unwilling to compromise when it comes to justifying actions intended to physically control a child or youth stems from its ideology.

An example of a compromise would have been to repeal section 43 but to add a new provision that indicates that the behaviour cannot be criminalized if the force is used to protect the child from a threat or danger, to prevent the child from committing a crime, or when performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good parenting.

The NDP's proposal is not the good idea that it appears to be. With the rise in violence in our schools, we cannot take away the few protective measures that teachers have at a time when they need to manage students who are less and less respectful of authority. Criminalizing by default force that is used to reasonably control a misbehaving student does nothing to encourage efforts to recruit educators.

That is a very real issue right now. For example, a Radio-Canada article written by Alexandre Duval last year stated that in 2021, “education centres in Quebec reported twice as many violent acts as in 2018-2019, before the pandemic”. There is no denying that increase, and we cannot add to teachers' mental burden by increasing the risk of lawsuits and taking away their ability to intervene if situations get out of hand. The article states the following:

At the Centre de services scolaires des Affluents in Lanaudière, reports of physical and verbal violence more than doubled over the same period, from 757 to over 2,000. This represents an increase of 164%. A comparable increase of 141% occurred in cases reported at the Centre de services scolaires de la Beauce-Etchemin. Just over 400 violent acts were reported in 2021, compared with 979 last year.

I would like to share a personal story. Before I was elected, because I love children so much, I was lucky enough to work as a monitor in an elementary school, where I had to deal with various situations. I had a ball thrown at my face, which broke my glasses. I saw children in crisis attacking their classmates. This was clearly a safety issue for the student involved and for the others. That is to say nothing of all the times I walked into a classroom and the teacher was trying to get some of the more unruly students under control. I witnessed some pretty disturbing scenes.

This bill would make it difficult for staff to intervene. In fact, I myself would have had concerns about intervening to restore a sense of security in such situations. We have to be extremely careful because the law already exists and we cannot use excessive force on a child. We obviously do not want to harm a child. Earlier I mentioned the 2004 ruling on section 43.

The research I did in preparation for this speech also led me to a report from the Institut national de santé publique du Québec that focused on violence and health and addressed the issue of bullying and violence at school. Violence can occur between students as well. Staff have to be able to take reasonable action if the other students are in danger.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois believes that our schools can be safe places for everyone and that our teachers play a key role in preserving a harmonious environment that is conducive to learning. We need to have a legal framework that is respectful of parental and teaching authority, provided it is used reasonably. It is a matter of education, but also of safety. As I was saying earlier, it is also a matter of knowing how we want to intervene with children, but it needs to be done reasonably. That is why we are voting against Bill C‑273. Again, the NDP is proposing an idea that is not as good as it seems and that might end up criminalizing the behaviour of parents and teachers who are acting in good faith.

I would like to point out one last thing. We all want the best education for our children, but we need to keep the tools that we have for taking action and protecting them. No one wants to use excessive force against a child. If there is a problem, then we want the justice system to be able to do its work. What we are seeing right now is that there are risks involved in repealing section 43. There is the risk of additional pressure on staff and the risk of error on the part of some parents. For all of these reasons, once again, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill, which addresses this extremely sensitive issue. Let us remember that, first and foremost, we want to make children's welfare a top priority for elected officials in the House.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-273, which was put forward by my wonderful colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby and seconded by my colleague from Nunavut.

As we have heard, the goal of this bill is to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code, “Correction of child by force”, which states, “Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.”

We are now in 2024. I was a long-time ECE teacher. I taught in the faculty of education at the University of Winnipeg training pre-service teachers entering schools. We know there is no benefit to using physical force against a student. In my time as a teacher, often working with students at risk, never once did I have to lay a hand on a student to remain in control.

It is not surprising that in my riding in Manitoba, the Aurora Family Therapy Centre supports the repeal of section 43, in addition to the Manitoba Association of School Superintendents. The very heads of schools in Manitoba support the repeal, along with Manitoba child care associations, experts in the field who understand very well that there is no place for using physical force against children.

In addition to this bill, one of the calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is to repeal section 43. We know of the harms that were done to children in residential schools. We know of the permanent damage and emotional scars that utilizing physical force against children had. That is why I am not surprised that over 700 organizations, including school superintendents, are supporting the repeal of section 43 of the Criminal Code.

I remember it was in my grade 2 class that I began hating on school. There was a time in my education where I do not think any teacher ever believed I would graduate from high school. My grade 2 teacher, whose name I still remember, Mr. Camilo, used to kick kids who were out of line to get them back in line. I remember one kid who was clearly struggling. Looking back, he probably had all sorts of stuff going on in his life, maybe even violence in his own home. He was kicked daily by Mr. Camilo to get him back in line.

I never saw any improvement in behaviour in his young boy. In fact, there was a growing resentment between the student and Mr. Camilo. I remember, as a little girl, how much I hated Mr. Camilo. My father was a psychologist with the department of education and worked with some of the most difficult kids who were having the most difficulties in the classroom, and we would talk about this.

I remember my dad advocating to end violence against kids in schools and physical punishment in school, having suffered his own physical punishment from adults trying to keep him in line when he was in hiding during the Holocaust. He remembered the emotional scars that caused, so I am not surprised that nearly 700 organizations and academics have endorsed a joint statement on the physical punishment of children and youth, stating that the physical punishment of children can no longer be justified by the Criminal Code of Canada. Seven hundred is no small number of experts, academics and folks like me, people who actually train pre-service teachers, who are saying there is no room to punish kids physically in institutions.

In fact, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that governments “must protect children from violence”. We are obliged, as members of Parliament, to uphold UN conventions, including that governments must protect children from violence and, I would argue, protect children from violence and abuse and being neglected by anyone who looks after them. I would argue that this bill is one more occasion when we can uphold human rights laws that impact children. There are over 65 countries around the world that have already banned the practice of physically punishing children. If Canada is to be a leader in human rights, it must repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code.

I have to say that I am disappointed, especially with the release of the truth and reconciliation report that came out in 2015, that we still live in a time when we can justify any sort of physical punishment of children, especially in child care institutions and schools. I can say, as somebody who spent over 30 years in the field of education, whether as an ECE, as a teacher or in training pre-service teachers at the university, that I never had to physically restrain some of the kids who had a lot of difficulties in the classroom, so I find this really hard.

It is often targeted at kids with special needs, including kids, for example, with ADHD, kids like my son, who had to have an individualized education program because he had difficulty staying in his seat. The teacher managed to integrate him into the classroom by putting tape on the floor to remind my wonderful son Jacob, my courageous, brilliant son Jacob, that he had to stay in the square. This teacher allowed my son to stand up at his desk and rock back and forth, because he could not manage himself sitting at his desk. He wrote all this beautiful poetry, and he got “outstanding” in science, and all it took was having him stand up. We need to find better and more creative ways to manage behaviour in the classroom and institutions, rather than physically restraining kids to make them follow the rules and toe the line even though we know that kids have differences.

Therefore, I am very proud to rise with my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby to bring this issue to light and to have the courage to say that maybe we need to do things a little better; maybe we need to be a little kinder, a little more gentle and a little more tender; and maybe we need to raise a new generation of children who practise non-violence because that non-violence was practised toward them.

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to stand today to speak to Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

I want to thank my colleague, the MP for New Westminster—Burnaby, for putting forward this important legislation, as well as the MP for Nunavut, who spoke recently to the bill, and now my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre. Both are incredibly strong voices in this chamber.

As we know, the physical punishment of children is still legal in Canada. I am a mother of two. My daughter, Makayla, is now 21, and my son is 16, so it hits my heart, and I believe it hits the hearts of many parents and people who care for children and youth across the country. Children should not have to live in fear of or experience physical punishment at home, at school or anywhere in our communities, and we know the detrimental impacts when they do.

Findings from a joint statement that was put forward by Canadians, and it sounds like my colleague was saying it was 700 organizations, including Family Service Canada, the Canadian Institute of Child Health and the Canadian Public Health Association, among others, show that there is no clear evidence that the use of physical punishment has any benefit to children and youth whatsoever. In fact, the findings show the opposite, that physical punishment on children places them at increased risk of not only physical harm but also poor mental health and increased negative impacts in areas such as moral values and challenges in adjusting into adulthood. I think our children and youth have a lot going on in today's world, and it is just an additional burden on so many children to have to deal with physical violence. To make matters worse, we know that physical punishment, regardless of the degree of the punishment, carries an increased risk of the escalation of violence.

There are 60 countries around the world that have banned the practice of physical punishment on children and youth, and this number continues to grow. Despite this, Canada is lagging behind on essential legislation to protect children.

This is not new. We know that Corinne Robertshaw, a lawyer for the federal government, saw first-hand the impacts of allowing physical punishment of children, with the death and injury of children in the 1970s and 1980s. Her advocacy continues today through dedicated volunteers for Corinne's Quest, which works to protect children and advocate for the repeal of section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Section 43 of the Criminal Code states, “Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.”

Now, I am certain many in this chamber today are having the same response to this section of the Criminal Code that I am. Again, the wording “force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances” is so far from clear. Also, with “force by way of correction”, there is so much room for interpretation, and it is leaving our children and youth at risk as a result.

We are seeing the devastating impacts of this outdated section of the Criminal Code across the country. For example, we see reports as well as evidence of horrific abuses of children and youth in schools from the very people entrusted to care for our children. We have seen reports of children being isolated and inappropriately restrained, causing physical and emotional harm, with little to no consequences for those who committed these acts. We know that this section of the Criminal Code does nothing to protect our children.

I would like to clarify that we are not talking about the actions required to protect children from themselves or others in school, for example. We are talking about physical acts of punishment, which we know clearly have no benefit for children.

I worked in schools for many years. Unfortunately, the stories that we often do not want to share are about the fact that sometimes there are circumstances in which a child is a potential harm to themselves and we have to do our duty as the adults and as educators.

As an example, I was working with a youth who was struggling and unable to make the judgment to not run into traffic. I had to, with care, hold on to his arm to ensure that he did not harm himself and run into traffic. There are examples where, of course, there needs to be carefully thought-out care provided to children, but this is not what we are talking about.

What we are talking about today is physical punishment. I want to make sure that is very clear. There are so many educational professionals across the country who go above and beyond to keep our kids safe and happy and their brains and bodies active. Educators need the capacity to keep children safe. I know that first-hand. At the same time, this section is causing more problems than it is good.

Of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations, specifically recommendation no. 6 is an exact recommendation within this report. We know that only 13 of 94 calls to action have actually been moved forward on to date. These calls to action were brought forward because of the bravery of residential school survivors and their families who shared their stories and experiences. It is time to see the government move forward with these recommendations. It is an insult to indigenous people and to all Canadians, the pace at which these recommendations are being actioned by the Liberal government. They need to be actioned today. This motion is a way to move forward in putting into action another recommendation.

My colleague, the MP for Nunavut, recently highlighted in the House the history and justification of harms towards indigenous children, which remain a shameful part of Canada's past and continue today as a result of government inaction on necessary changes in the Criminal Code, such as to section 43, being debated today. I want to highlight her words in her recent speech on this exact bill, because I feel they are important.

Canada's reconciliation with indigenous peoples still requires dedicated, well-invested and true commitment. Indigenous peoples have yet to experience active reconciliation. Banning the physical punishment of children would be a positive step. Justification for harming children can end. It can be the 44th Parliament that achieves this.

My hope is that we will all come together as members in the House to support this bill and do what is needed to protect children and youth. We know that this not a partisan issue. This is a much-overdue and necessary change to an outdated section of the Criminal Code. Despite our differences in this House, my hope is that we will all put partisanship to the side and do what is in the best interests of children and youth.

I want to point out that this is important work to move forward with big and necessary steps, but in addition to this, families require the supports and resources necessary to prevent and stop the cycle of violence. I cannot reiterate enough how vitally important it is that we have a government that is truly investing in people, as too many are struggling to make ends meet and too many are not getting the supports they need. These are ingredients for increased violence and need to be addressed and invested in appropriately.

Instead of providing justification for the physical punishment of our children, we must all come together to ensure that the human rights of children and youth are respected by repealing section 43 of the Criminal Code and supporting my colleague's bill, Bill C-273.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by noting that, this evening and in past debate, we have heard really clear calls for how important this bill is, in particular from our hon. colleague the member for Nunavut tonight. The member for Winnipeg Centre further made clear that case.

With the limited time that I have, the contribution I would like to make to this debate is really focused on the importance of listening to indigenous leaders, particularly with respect to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

In my view, Bill C-273 is an offer to all parliamentarians to move ahead with the TRC's calls to actions. For my part, I have committed to fully implementing them, as has the Green Party of Canada.

I will read out, once again, call to action 6: “We call upon the Government of Canada to repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada.”

This is exactly what Bill C-273 seeks to do.

As background, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued 94 calls to action back in 2015 and progress has been absurdly slow. At the current pace, the calls will not be completed until 2081, yet every party in this House of Commons has committed to fully implementing the calls.

I will summarize them now. In 2015, then-leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, now the Prime Minister, said, “On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and our parliamentary caucus, I affirm our unwavering support for the TRC’s recommendations, and call on the Government of Canada to take immediate action to implement them.”

That is being applauded by a member from the governing party. I would remind that member that call to action 6 is exactly what this bill is calling for. I certainly hope that this government will be supporting Bill C-273.

As for the Conservative Party, in 2021, Erin O'Toole, then-leader of the Conservative Party, pledged a plan to implement all Truth and Reconciliation calls to action. I assume that included call to action 6.

As for the Bloc Québécois, in 2021, in their platform, Bloc MPs would pressure the federal government to implement all recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

In the same campaign, 2021, the leader of the NDP committed to fully implement all outstanding recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. An NDP MP, in fact, is bringing forward a bill here to work toward doing so.

The leader of the Green Party of Canada, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, pledged the same thing.

In short, I hope that my colleagues follow through on the commitments of their parties and those that I know they personally, I am sure, have also made.

Certainly, I hope, at the very least, that this would get to committee. This is the second time now, in my time as an MP, that I am seeing this gap between commitments to follow the TRC calls to action and opportunities that MPs have to do so.

The last time was on Bill C-5. One of the TRC calls to action, call to action 32, is to remove mandatory minimum penalties. Of course, Bill C-5 removed some but not all of them. That was not what was in call to action 32. It was to follow through on removing all of them.

Once again, though, in this vote on Bill C-273, parliamentarians will have another opportunity. For those who have pledged to pressure the government to do so, this is now being offered. An MP has put forward a bill that would directly call to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. That is call to action 6.

I would hope that colleagues would support this bill and, in doing so, move us one very small step closer toward following through on all 94 calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission from back in 2015. We are now in 2024. We need to move more quickly. Here is one chance to do so.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, tomorrow, we have an important task. We are going to hold a vote on the principle of Bill C-273, which seeks to ban corporal punishment of children in Canada and repeal the section of the Criminal Code that has existed since 1892 that allows for corporal punishment of children. One of my colleagues just said that this bill needs to be amended. Tomorrow, we will vote on the principle, but amendments can certainly be presented in committee.

In addition, it is important to mention, as my colleague from Winnipeg Centre just did, that 700 organizations across the country want MPs from Quebec and across Canada to vote in favour of the bill tomorrow. Dozens of those organizations are in Quebec, such as the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, the Association des CLSC et des CHSLD du Québec, the Association des médecins en protection de l'enfance du Québec, the Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance au Québec, and many others. They want us to vote in favour because they understand the impact of these punishments. Corporal punishment is linked to widespread and lasting personal and societal harm. As the organizations point out, 75% of substantiated cases of physical abuse in Canada are linked to corporal punishment. These organizations make it abundantly clear that section 43 of the Criminal Code must be repealed.

Other countries are doing the same. It is important to point that out. Countries like Korea, Colombia, Japan, South Africa, France, Ireland, Argentina, Brazil, Poland and Spain have abolished corporal punishment of children. Tomorrow's vote in principle on the bill will allow us to join 65 countries around the world that have already held these debates and decided that section 43 of the Criminal Code should be abolished.

I wanted to shout out to Corinne's Quest; Kathy and John Lynn of New Westminster, British Columbia; and all the organizations that have called for the abolition of section 43 of the Criminal Code. They have done that as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission tells us to in its call to action 6. After the horrendous genocide that happened in residential schools, they are saying now is the time to move forward on call to action 6. As my colleagues have mentioned, it has been eight years since those calls to action were issued.

There has not been one call to action that has been advanced since 2022, and this means that members of Parliament tomorrow will have the ability to vote in principle on moving forward on call to action 6; removing section 43 of the Criminal Code, which dates back to 1892; and finally putting in place the kind of atmosphere for kids that we need to see in our country.

I mentioned earlier many of the national organizations that are calling on parliamentarians to abolish section 43. They include the Anglican Church of Canada, Big Brothers Big Sisters, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, occupational therapists, pediatric health centres, pediatric nurses, social workers, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Red Cross, the YMCA, the YWCA and more than 65 countries that have called for the same thing, because they know that 75% of substantiated physical abuse cases in Canada arise from incidents of physical punishment.

They say very clearly that it is time for Canada to move beyond an aspect of the Criminal Code that was put in place in 1892. It is time to heed the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It is time to put in place call to action 6. It is time to learn from the past.

Tomorrow, members of Parliament will have an important vote, the vote in principle to move forward from this aspect of the Criminal Code that justifies physical punishment of children.

I hope that all those voices are heard and I hope that members of Parliament vote yes on Bill C-273.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 6:30 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

Accordingly, the question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion 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.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would ask for a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 14, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Alleged Inadmissibility of Amendment to Motion, Government Business No. 34—Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the House leader of the official opposition. It concerns the admissibility of an amendment made to Government Business No. 34, namely the inclusion of a substantive amendment to Bill C-62, an act to amend an act to amend the Criminal Code, medical assistance in dying, no. 2.

The member argued that the amendment was inadmissible insofar as it was attempting to introduce a new proposition to the motion. He stated that the motion deals with programming and timetabling of the House consideration of the bill, while the amendment to the motion seeks to amend the bill itself. He claimed that such a proposal should take the form of a separate motion, following the necessary notice requirement.

Normally the House leader would be correct. Substantive motions to amend a bill would be moved at specific steps in the legislative process. It would thereby be possible to move a distinct motion of instruction to the committee or propose specific amendments during the clause-by-clause study or at report stage. However, government Motion No. 34 deals with passage of the bill at several of the stages simultaneously, including committee stage and report stage.

The provisions of this motion, if adopted, would not offer members any other opportunity to amend the bill itself. The member for Montcalm, wanting to offer his amendment to the bill, proceeded in the only way available to him, which was by amending the text of the government motion to include the specific legislative text he wishes to include in the bill. Due to the constraining effects of the motion and not having any other option available to the member to amend the bill, the Chair allowed the proposal amending the motion on Government Business No. 34.

On the argument that the amendment was beyond the scope of the motion because it veered away from straightforward programming or timetabling of the House’s consideration of the bill and into substantive alterations to the bill itself, the Chair’s view is that the scope does not need to be cast so narrowly. In this instance, the scope of the motion can be ascertained as an effort to direct the proceedings on Bill C-62 in a particular fashion, including in relation to its consideration at committee and report stage, which may or may not include legislative changes.

If it is the will of the House to adopt an alternate but still compatible course of action, that is to instead refer the bill to committee with instructions and include specific provisions amending the text of Bill C-62, the Chair finds that it is within the scope of the motion.

To support this conclusion, I refer the House to a similar programming motion that was adopted following a recorded division on April 28, 2021. It is found on page 853 of the Journals. An amendment to that programming motion had been agreed to. It specifically proposed amendments to a bill. In my opinion, the amendment to Government Business No. 34 is not much different from the example I just gave.

For these reasons stated above, the Chair finds that the amendment to the motion on Government Business No. 34 is in order. I thank members for their attention on this matter.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe it was the member from the Green Party who was just finishing his comments. I appreciate the fact that he put a great deal of emphasis on priorities. He mentioned a few issues, and I want to be sensitive to those issues concerning mental health, and the housing-related issues and so forth.

The motion today on Bill C-62 is important for us to get to the next stage. Whatever one's position is on the issue, we need to recognize, whether it is the Supreme Court of Canada or the Quebec Appeal Court, the need to address the issue.

I wonder if the member could pick up where he left off, before the debate came to an end, and give his personal opinion on why it is important, when we are communicating with people outside of the Ottawa bubble, that we be as factual as possible on the legislation.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North that it is important to be clear, and we must act expeditiously in advance of the March 17 deadline. I am glad to see that the governing party is moving this forward in order for us to do so. As we shared this morning, it is one of the reasons the Greens supported moving it with a time allocation motion in this case. This demonstrates that there are parliamentary tools available to move with urgency on issues that merit that.

As I shared in my speech, when it comes to housing, we need more than the right words. We need to see the investments and the parliamentary tools to move more quickly. The same is the case for ending legislated poverty for people with disabilities.

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

Madam Speaker, one striking thing about this debate, for me, is that no advocate of legalized or expanded euthanasia says that everybody should be able to access this thing because they want it. Rather, what advocates say is that people in certain situations should be able to access it. For instance, they say that if an able-bodied person comes to a doctor and says, “I want you to help me end my life”, they are offered some kind of suicide prevention. However, if a person with a disability says, “In the context of my situation, I want to end my life”, they might be offered suicide facilitation.

This is not about a general policy of choice or autonomy, rather this is about saying that certain people who present with an apparent desire for death are treated one way and others are treated a different way. That raises a big problem in terms of how we value the lives of people with disabilities. I am curious to hear my colleague's response.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, in this debate, when we speak about the reality of legislated poverty for people with disabilities, I am concerned that it is only coming up today in this debate. It is important for all parliamentarians to consider how they spend their time on a regular basis, ensuring they continue to advocate to end legislated poverty, to improve the quality of life for people with disabilities, with the tools they have available to them here.

I would encourage my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to consider using the tools he has available to him, for example, to push the Liberal government to fund the Canada disability benefit, a substantive measure that could make a real difference to improve the lives of people with disabilities, which we have not seen the Liberal government move ahead with, disappointingly so.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am having a hard time understanding what my colleague is saying. He knows very well that structural vulnerabilities, such as poverty, have an impact on overall health.

Is he saying that we need to deal with that before we can allow people who are mentally ill to get relief from their irremediable suffering? That is what I am getting from his speech, when recommendations 5 and 6 of the panel's report indicate that, if there is any doubt whatsoever as to structural vulnerabilities, then medical assistance in dying will not be made available.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I apologize. I will reply in English to make sure I get my wording correct. In the future, I hope to do so in French.

The short answer is yes. I believe very strongly that this Parliament should be working far more diligently toward closing our social safety net. Instead of the urgency it seems to have with expanding medical assistance in dying, I would rather see our Parliament close our social safety net first.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Lethbridge.

In my still, as yet, relatively short parliamentary career, it has been necessary for me to address this dark subject of legalized medically facilitated killing well over a dozen times. When I was elected eight years ago, it was not legal, under any circumstance, for a doctor to kill, or to assist in the killing of, a patient. Prior to that time, when this issue had been brought to the House of Commons, proposals for the legalization of this sort of killing had been defeated by massive margins, with a majority of Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats opposing such changes, just eight short years ago.

I recall, as a young Conservative staffer in 2009, hearing and reflecting on the wise words of former NDP MP Joe Comartin, who told the House the following on October 2 of that year. He said:

I have spoken to Carol Derbyshire, who is the head of the hospice. She said the hospice does not get requests for assisted suicide. They provide the care, not just to the patient but to the family. She was very clear on that. She has seen any number of surveys that say one of the major reasons, aside from pain, that people want assisted suicide in their regime is that they do not want to be a burden on their family, their society, their community. If we can build that system to make sure they do not have to be concerned about that, we take away any desire to terminate their lives arbitrarily and at an earlier date than would be natural.

We need to look at our system right now.... At this point, approximately 20% of our population is covered by meaningful palliative care, hospice and a home care system. That is all we have in the country. Then there is another 15% or maybe 17% who are covered by partial assistance at the end of life.

This former NDP MP foresaw how requests for premature death would emerge not primarily from some fixed and deeply held desire to die, but from a social, cultural and political context in which people in pain are either invited to stay or invited to leave and in which people are offered the support to stay or not. We are all social beings, and our exercise of autonomy happens in a social context. The current context is one of increasing atomization and division, economic failures leading to immense affordability challenges and a kind of moral chaos resulting from the common lack of constructive frameworks for finding meaning and purpose in life.

The touchstones of connection, happiness and meaning are eroding. This leads to an increasing demand for government services that will, it is hoped, fill the gap left by declining community and family and that will provide people with support in finding connection, happiness and meaning when they are lacking. As these supports are never available from the state in ways that truly fulfill the desire for connection and community that we all have, the pain increases and leads more people to want to give up.

This has been the trajectory of our society recently, with the additional reality that COVID-era restrictions and polarization accelerated the breakdown of connection and community among many people. As more and more people want to give up, the legalization of medically facilitated death is presented as a solution at the end of the road. Over the last eight years, as more and more people have come to the end of that road, the numbers continue to go up exponentially. This is the social context driving the mental health crisis we have, to which euthanasia is now being offered as a solution.

In the speech from MP Comartin that I referred to, he also observed how a lack of proper training and emphasis on effective pain management meant that existing tools and technologies were not being deployed to relieve pain, even in the many cases where such relief was possible. He predicted, again correctly, that the legalization of euthanasia would lead to less attention to pain relief and thus further tilting the decision-making playing field away from life and toward death. That is exactly what we are seeing.

John Paul II posited in the 1990s:

[The] reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable “culture of death”. This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another. A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more favoured tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. In this way a kind of “conspiracy against life” is unleashed. This conspiracy involves not only individuals in their personal, family or group relationships, but goes far beyond, to the point of damaging and distorting, at the international level, relations between peoples and States.

Eight years on, we are sadly seeing the flower of this predicted culture of death. We hear proposals for the killing of children, even babies, and for the killing of those with depression and other mental health challenges. We have heard many testimonies of people who have been called selfish for wanting to remain alive in a situation where they require the care and support of others.

We are seeing the lives of those with disabilities, those facing homelessness and others facing pain and suffering devalued at the social, institutional and political levels. We see the manifesting of this war of the powerful against the weak, insofar as suicide prevention is offered to some, while suicide facilitation is offered to others, depending on pre-existing power and privilege.

Proponents of euthanasia have never said that all people who want to die should be able to choose to die. Rather, they have said that certain kinds of people should be helped to die, while other kinds of people should be helped to live. This differential treatment of different people necessarily informs the social context in which people feel loved, included and happy, or not.

Eight years on, Canada’s experiment with medically facilitated killing has failed. I will leave it to another time to consider whether it could have succeeded. Some will argue that it would have been possible to legalize euthanasia without unleashing the kind of ever-expanding culture of death that we see proposed. However, what is clear, at least in the context of our own experience, is that medically-facilitated killing has a taken on a kind of self-reinforcing logic that leads to constant expansion, a devaluing of the lives of the most vulnerable and eroding public and community support for the things that would actually improve the quality of life of those who suffer.

One effect of this culture of death is that people in vulnerable situations actually fear interactions with the medical system because they do not want to be pressured toward suicide in a moment of weakness or vulnerability. I have specifically heard this concern, even now from people facing acute mental pain, that they do not want to seek help in many contexts because they are looking for life and dignity-affirming help, and they are afraid the so-called care they might receive would take the form of pressuring them toward an early exit.

This is part of the reason Conservatives support the protection of conscience for individual medical practitioners and institutions. It is not just for the sake of the provider, but also for the sake of the patient, who should at least have the freedom to opt to access health care in a life and dignity-affirming environment, where they can be confident that they will not be pressured or even offered premature death. Understandably, many of those who are in a vulnerable state do not wish to even be offered such things, since the affirmation of life and meaning is an essential part of the proper course of treatment for those facing mental health challenges.

After eight years, it is important that we stop and take stock of how much has changed, lest we forget that political choices have profound consequences and also that political choices, once made, can still be at least partially unmade. I am reminded of this every time I talk to a legislator in another country about Canada’s euthanasia regime. Legislators in other western democratic countries, including many from the left, are for the most part horrified by the present reality of euthanasia in Canada.

One British legislator told their House of Commons the following:

...turning to the example of Canada across the pond, Living and Dying Well also found that clinicians reported five specific issues surrounding legalisation, including that it complicates the management of pre-existing symptoms; adversely impacts the important doctor-patient relationship; causes tension for families during what is often an already deeply challenging period; diverts resources away from crucial palliative care services; and confuses patients as to the nature and purpose of palliative care. When considered as a whole, those issues reported by practising clinicians in Canada are not something that we as lawmakers can or should overlook, and I believe that the highlighted impacts on palliative care provision are of particular concern.

Why are concerns about Canada’s emergent culture of death not as well known or discussed in the Canadian House of Commons or in Canadian society as they are in the British House of Commons or in other countries? Here, I do want to point the finger specifically at our state-funded media, the CBC.

I am most enthusiastic about our Conservative commitment to defund the CBC because of the shameless way that this organization uses its funded and privileged position to push stories that glorify euthanasia, while ignoring the pain and suffering of those whose experiences the CBC does not want to share. Good ideas win fair debates, and my constituents should not be forced to give over a billion dollars every year to an organization that desperately hunts for stories aimed at masking the dark realities of medically facilitated killing and suicide.

Canada was not this way eight years ago, and fortunately, Canada will not be this way forever. The end of this fanatically pro-euthanasia pro-death government is now more than reasonably foreseeable. A Conservative government would forever dispense with this lingering proposed legalization of medically facilitated suicide for those with mental health challenges. We would turn hurt into hope. We would stand with the most vulnerable and work to revive the structures of family and community that advance connection, happiness and meaning. We would celebrate life instead of death for all, not just for the privileged.

For nations and for people there is always hope. “For the wretched of the earth, there is a flame that never dies. Even the darkest nights will end and the sun will rise.”

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

Madam Speaker, I for one believe in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When the Supreme Court made the decision under Carter that we needed to develop MAID legislation in Canada, there was a great deal of consultation. We all have personal opinions on complicated issues, including me, but I respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the court decisions, whether from the Supreme Court of Canada or the Superior Court in the province of Quebec.

Could the member provide his thoughts regarding whether he supports the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the decisions that have been made through the courts?

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

Madam Speaker, I have more respect for the charter than I believe this member of the government has. Notably, they have chosen, in the case of the Emergencies Act ruling, to appeal a court ruling. In the case of the Truchon decision, made by one judge, they chose not to appeal. I think this was clearly because the ideological minister of justice at the time was desperate to justify the expansion of the already flawed regime. Therefore, the government arbitrarily chooses not to appeal certain rulings when it likes the ruling and to appeal other rulings.

This is not about what the courts have said. The government has consistently pushed an ideological agenda that goes far beyond what the courts have said, and the mental health provision has absolutely nothing to do with the court ruling.

The members opposite would sometimes like to dispense with an actual substantive engagement on the topic and just say they are going to let other people make the decision. However, it does not wash, especially in the case where they chose not to appeal the ruling.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will try to be polite because I thought my colleague's speech was quite exaggerated. That is not surprising, because I have heard his leader say in the past that people are requesting MAID because they do not have enough to eat. When the leader is so flippant, it is easy to understand why a member would frame MAID as a conspiracy against life, as a culture of death, as a war of the most powerful against the weak.

I would like to pick up on what my colleague was saying. I get the impression that, if we had let him continue a bit longer, he was going to tell us that contraception was also one of those conspiracies against life. I just want to be clear with my colleague. He began his speech by telling us that people might request MAID because they were afraid of being a burden. I just want to let him know, having been through this with family members, that it is because people are afraid of suffering.

When we love someone who is suffering and we know that the end is near, we try to do everything possible to make them comfortable. I do not think he understands that.

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

Madam Speaker, respectfully to my colleague, I have journeyed with close family members who have suffered significantly at the time of their death. I think one of the biggest challenges we see in this country, and members of the NDP have pointed this out in previous Parliaments, is a significant lack of proper training in pain management and proper available palliative care, as well as instances of people being actively pushed towards death by the system.

I am not worried about MAID being offered to everyone; euthanasia is not being offered to everyone. Euthanasia is being offered to certain people in certain situations, reflecting a social and political view of the value of their life. This is what the disability community has pushed Parliament to hear. When we offer suicide facilitation for people with disabilities and prevention for people without disabilities, that clearly sends the wrong message about valuing the universal value and dignity of all human life.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is mixing up the timelines here. He keeps referring to eight years; in fact, the essence of the bill we are talking about happened three years ago.

Now, if the member wants to talk about someone suffering from stage 4 cancer and just taking some painkillers, I will let him defend himself. However, on what Bill C-62 is doing, we are dealing with a March 17 deadline. This morning, the Conservatives voted against time management of the bill. However, he must understand that we only have two sitting weeks to get the bill to the Governor General's desk.

Why did Conservatives vote against that when we are dealing with a hard deadline, understanding that the law will change if we do not get the bill passed?

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

Madam Speaker, in terms of legislative timing, the government missed an opportunity to actually resolve this issue when it voted against the private member's bill from my colleague, the member for Abbotsford. Conservatives put forward a bill in the fall that would fix this problem and forever put a stake in this terrible idea of euthanasia for those with mental health challenges.

Now, we want the bill before us, which would extend the timeline, to pass so that when we have a Conservative government, we can actually permanently fix this problem. However, it is up to the government to allocate more days for debate; I would suggest that they do so, so more members can speak and so we can get it done before the deadline.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the number of Canadians ending their lives through medical assistance in dying is accelerating at a rate that outpaces that in any other country. Canada's most recent annual report on medical assistance in dying, which I will call MAID from this point forward, shows that MAID deaths are actually up by 30% from just one year ago. This is not just a one-time occasion or occurrence. Rather, this is actually a trend. Year over year, we are seeing a rapid increase.

The matter at hand today, in the most literal sense, is a matter of life and death. Around the world, people are watching Canada and the debate taking place in this House. They are doing so with an overwhelming belief that what the current government is considering is, in fact, reckless. That is extending medical assistance in dying to those with a mental illness. This topic deserves our utmost attention today in this place and, my hope would be, beyond.

Last spring, the Liberals created legislation that would grant MAID to those struggling with a mental illness, starting on March 17, which is only a few weeks away. Thanks to the rallying cry of medical experts, those who struggle with a mental illness and concerned Canadians from far and wide, along with Conservative members of Parliament, the government has been forced into a position where they have actually had to hit the pause button. This is not permanent; it is only temporary, lasting for three years. We will then see this legislation back before the House, with the current government desiring to offer medical assistance in dying to those who struggle with a mental illness.

When considering whether a mental disorder is irremediable, Parliament has heard from clinicians, who stated that it is only predictable 50% of the time. In other words, 50% of the time, clinicians are able to say that the individual will not recover from the mental illness. The other 50% of the time, they actually get it wrong. It is not the same as a brain tumour, for example, that can be seen on a scan, where there is evidence that can be judged and physical circumstances that can be known. Mental illness does not operate that way. While doctors might be correct 50% of the time, this means that, with regard to a prognosis, they are also wrong 50% of the time. To be very frank, the toss of a coin feels like a rather sad, wrong way to make a life or death decision. That is really what we are talking about: the toss of a coin, where 50% of the time, they get heads, and 50% of the time, they get tails. That is how this decision would be made if we were to move forward with medical assistance in dying for those who have a mental illness. This is absolutely wrong. That Parliament would even consider it is deeply troubling.

Of course, we know that this has nothing to do with whether our physicians and our psychiatrists are functioning in an adequate manner. It has everything to do with the fact that mental illnesses are incredibly complex and difficult to understand.

It is important, as we engage in this debate, to consider what medical experts are saying. We heard from Physicians Together with Vulnerable Canadians, which reported, “Given that there is no medical evidence to reliably predict which patients with a mental illness will not get better, MAID for mental illness will end the lives of patients who would have recovered.”

The Canadian Centre for Suicide Prevention echoed this, reporting, “There is no consensus on the meaning of irremediability for any mental disorder.” Dr. Gaind, chief of psychiatry at Sunnybrook Hospital, raised the alarm; he said, we “cannot predict irremediability when it comes to mental illness”.

Dr. Zivot agreed, saying, “mental illness lacks a strict definition and therefore, by lack of definition, can never be grievous and irremediable”. He went on to say that “if MAID becomes a treatment option within mental health care, the bond of trust and the pledge between doctor and patient is destroyed”.

Those who live with a mental illness need hope, not death. They need us to believe in them when they are unable to believe in themselves.

It is incumbent upon us, as a society, to extend hope, to offer support and to give treatment, not death. When we consider extending medical assistance in dying to those who are suffering from mental illness, many Canadians are left extremely vulnerable. When an offer of death is extended to those who are struggling, we communicate a message that there is really no hope and no opportunity for recovery; we communicate that the best relief would be to exit this life. That lacks compassion. It is deeply troubling.

Laurel Walker has been very public about her story. She talks about her darkest days of living with a mental illness, about suicide being an ideation of hers, day after day. Then she talks about the fact that she had this glimmer of hope that somehow kept her alive. She warned Parliament that, if we were to go in this direction of legalizing medical assistance in dying for those who have a mental illness, we would be robbing them of that hope and sending this grave message that, really, death is their only option.

Dr. Sareen offered the same warning and shared that making MAID available for mental disorders would undermine suicide prevention efforts and lead to unnecessary deaths. He said:

When a society makes MAID available, the population believes it is a way to end suffering. In other jurisdictions that have had MAID available for mental disorders, not only are there deaths due to MAID, but there are also deaths related to non-MAID suicides.

In other words, we see an increase not only in medical assistance in dying rates but also in suicide in general. There is this lack of hope and this message conveyed by society that there is no future.

As Canadians, we can do better. I dare say we must do better. We cannot give up on people such as Laurel, who are fighting for their very lives. These folks are in desperate need of hope and help. They want treatment, not death.

Those struggling with their mental health deserve that element of support. Rather than looking to facilitate the deaths of fellow Canadians who are suffering, we must focus on how we can better provide the needed treatment. In an article, psychiatrist John Maher is quoted as expressing that “Mental illness is treatable, and death is not treatment.”

We know that the problem is rarely only mental illness. It is often within the larger context of social challenges as well, whether this is not having basic necessities, such as housing, or a social structural support that is not available to these folks. Again, we have a responsibility as a society to make sure that those things are available to these individuals. Death is not the answer.

To my fellow colleagues in this place, I would make the following plea: Let us not just simply push the temporary pause button, as if to say their life is worth something now but, in a few years, it may no longer be. It is as if to say that the flip of a coin might not be acceptable now, but maybe we will flip a coin in three years; that might be okay. Rather, let us commit to permanently valuing those who live with a mental illness, and let us make sure that they are forever offered the adequate health care supports that are needed. Death is not that.

Christie Pollock submitted testimony calling for great caution. She is a 30-year-old who has her own struggle. She talks about the hope that she is now able to offer, because she runs a support group. Then she talks about the fact that, if medical assistance in dying had been offered to her, she might not be here. She goes on to say that, sure, she has her struggles, and she is not healed, but she has found a mix of therapy and medication that is getting her through. Her days are filled with hope. It is not just hope for herself; she is also able to offer hope to others.

Madam Speaker and members of this House, this is where we should wish to land, where the people of this place offer hope to Canadians, not death.