Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2026

Building Canada Strong Act

[Braeden Caley, Liberal, North Vancouver—Capilano, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's important question. I know that exactly that kind of consideration was a key theme of the consultations that have taken place over previous months. It is one that is important to me as well in ensuring that those assessments are rigorous from the beginning, that they are built in from the beginning and that they are serious at every stage. The bill would do that by ensuring that rigour is not conflated alone with the time that such a process takes, and that this rigour could be brought into the timelines that allow us to build faster while still building sustainably. That is what I believe the bill would do, and that is why I am very proud to support it.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from North Vancouver—Capilano, along the same sort of lines as my colleague across the way. I know that he was knocking on doors for almost a month recently, and it has been a great success for him. I also want to ask him about how this bill specifically would answer or quell any concerns that he heard when knocking on the doors of the great people of North Vancouver—Capilano.

[Braeden Caley, Liberal, North Vancouver—Capilano, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's excellent question.

The bill would allow us to build faster in Canada once again, to build big once again, to orient our economy in the way that we need to, to reach new markets and to diversify our market partners around the world much more quickly than we otherwise might have, having this conversation years ago. That is exactly what people at their doors were expecting across North Vancouver—Capilano this summer in a very important campaign.

Urgency is what is expected, as is the ability to do that in solidarity with Canadian workers and in a way that is sustainable for our nature. These are key facets of every community across the north shore, and really of every community across B.C. and of so many communities across the country. The bill would ensure that we can meet those balances properly and quickly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also welcome the member for North Vancouver—Capilano to the House. I suppose I could also welcome him to North Vancouver. I also was up and down the hills of North Vancouver quite a lot through the by-election, and I may have heard different things from the voters there. I do want to help the hon. member.

This question was asked to my friend the member for Joliette—Manawan by the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer: Where in the bill do we find retrenchments and abandonment of endangered species? It is riddled throughout the bill. It is changes in the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, it is changes in the Fisheries Act and it is changes in the Species at Risk Act all around the idea that before conditions can be set, they would have to be examined for their practical feasibility and economic impact. This bill is nothing but a disgraceful abandonment of environmental regulation across Canada and decades of work.

Since the hon. member references the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, how can he ignore, and does he ignore, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation court case against the dredging of Burrard Inlet, which would destroy habitat that the federal government committed to protect?

[Braeden Caley, Liberal, North Vancouver—Capilano, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the centrality of first nations partnership and building has been a key commitment of the government and is a key commitment of the Prime Minister and all of the cabinet team. The bill would really honour that commitment in several important ways, and it is a commitment that as a member of Parliament and working with the bill that we will hopefully pass, I would certainly want to uphold in every way we can as one team of Parliament.

This is a fundamental set of partnerships across the north shore, two nations in the Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish, that have thoughtfully and ambitiously prepared visions about how we build our economy together. It builds the country stronger when they do, and I am grateful for that chance at partnership.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary session begins, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you and all my colleagues well, along with the many parliamentary employees who make our work here in the House possible, day in and day out. I am very pleased to see everyone again after a great summer in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou.

Over the past few months, I have met with over 50 organizations and businesses in my riding and participated in various activities and festivities in my community. Before I speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, I want to take a moment to tell you about an experience I had this summer in my riding. It shines a light on the importance of our work as MPs, whether here, in Ottawa, or through programs that directly affect our communities, like the Canada summer jobs program.

I met with more than 30 organizations this summer that participate in this program. I can guarantee one thing: The program is making a real difference on the ground. People from one of the organizations I visited told me that they had been asking for two student job positions for a number of years but, unfortunately, they always received only one. This year, we made sure that they got two. I would like to repeat what the people at this organization told me. They told me that the second position would let them give their volunteers some time off—

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou has some good stories to share about his summer, but that is not the subject of the bill we are currently discussing. I would like you to call him to order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for his comment. Members have some leeway in their speeches, but I am certain that the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou will get to the bill before us.

The hon. member may continue his speech.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my story is almost finished. My colleague will be able to put it to good use and I will get back to Bill C-39 very soon.

What the people at that organization told me is worth remembering. The second student job position really helped get volunteers some time off, time for their first-ever vacation. Let that sink in for a second. Having one extra person made it possible for volunteers to take some vacation time. What we do here has a real impact in our communities. I wanted to highlight that at the start of my speech today.

Now, I would like to get back to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, under discussion today. I want to begin by referring to a book published in 2025, which I am sure will call to mind Bill C-39 for my colleagues. In the book Abundance, by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, one of the questions the authors ask is why a country as rich and technologically advanced as our southern neighbour currently struggles to build enough housing, infrastructure, energy and other essential goods. To some degree, I think we all see some similarity to the challenges facing Canada today.

The authors argue that part of the problem is the rules, procedures and institutions that, over time, have made delivering major projects much slower and much more difficult. They therefore advocate for placing greater emphasis on our ability to produce, build and deliver. In short, this means shifting from a policy focused primarily on distributing resources to one that also seeks to increase supply, ramp up our production capacity and boost our ability to build.

At this point, I think it is fair to draw a parallel between that analysis and what we are proposing in Bill C‑39 to build Canada strong. I am sure all of my colleagues have heard the old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We need to do things differently. We need to think differently. Anyone who believes we can keep doing exactly the same things and suddenly achieve different results is sticking their head in the sand. That is choosing inaction. That is choosing the status quo, and the status quo is a choice. Changing nothing is a choice. Leaving things the way they are is a choice.

We must move away from this mindset and regain our ability to build. We are capable of building more, with greater ambition, and more quickly. Let us take an example from our history: the St. Lawrence Seaway. Major construction work began in 1954, and the Seaway was officially opened to navigation in 1959. It took five years to build the Montreal-Lake Ontario section, which spans approximately 300 kilometres of waterways. It was not just a matter of digging a canal. It required building locks, constructing canals, erecting dams, carrying out major dredging work, modifying bridges and relocating infrastructure.

Continuing westward, Montreal is about 600 kilometres from Lake Erie by waterway via Lake Ontario and the Welland Canal. The entire waterway network connecting the St. Lawrence to the heart of the Great Lakes stretches over 2,000 kilometres. Just think about that for a moment. In the 1950s, in just a few years, we were able to carry out one of the greatest infrastructure projects of our time, and we did a significant portion of the work right here at home in Canada. We built, we thought big, and we transformed our economy.

The question we need to ask ourselves today is simple. Can we still build with that same ambition? I believe that Bill C‑39 invites us to reflect on this question and, above all, to regain the ability to complete major projects for future generations of Canadians.

What does that mean in concrete terms? First, it means making our approval processes for major projects more predictable.

These days, when a business, community or proponent wants to build a major project, they often have to navigate multiple processes and steps that might overlap and make the work more complex. It can take longer to get results. Bill C-39 proposes to better coordinate these processes so that decisions on projects requiring a federal permit can be made within one year. Let me be clear. We do not have to choose between upholding Canada's strong environmental protections and streamlining the project review process. We can and must do both. We can be ambitious and rigorous at the same time.

I cannot help but immediately think of my region, the Quebec City region, and specifically the Port of Québec, which plays an important role in our regional economy and our trade with the rest of the world. Bill C‑39 proposes to modernize the governance of Canadian ports, reduce certain administrative burdens and facilitate the digitization of trade. The bill also designates strategic trade corridors and establishes a transportation project office to better coordinate federal permits and advance priority projects.

A product manufactured in Quebec does not only create value when it leaves the factory. It must then be efficiently transported to a port, a railway or the border and on to new markets. An efficient supply chain is essential to enabling our businesses to grow and innovate. At a time when Canada is looking to diversify its trade and reduce its dependence on certain markets, this capability becomes even more important. We have signed 20 trade agreements over the past year. We must now honour our commitments.

This is what building Canada strong means in practical terms. It means enabling a business to carry out a project. It means enabling a port to operate more efficiently. It means enabling our products to reach new markets. It means providing future generations with the infrastructure, jobs and opportunities they will need. Canada has the resources, the talent, the workers, the businesses and the communities capable of achieving great things. Our challenge is not knowing whether we have the capacity to build. Our challenge is equipping ourselves with the means to do just that, the means to realize our ambitions.

We need to simplify where we can simplify, coordinate where we can coordinate better, protect what we need to protect. Above all, we need to rediscover our collective ability to build Canada strong.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his excellent speech. He is obviously very proud of his beautiful region of Quebec City. In August, the government awarded a contract worth over $11 billion to the Davie shipyard to build six new icebreakers.

I would like my colleague to tell us how such a contract, which is good for our workers and our suppliers, fits into Bill C-39.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We were fortunate to be able to make that extraordinary announcement this summer after years and years of working with Davie, a real gem in our community. I worked in the Quebec City area as the president of the chamber of commerce. The Davie shipyard is located on the other side of the river, in Lévis. Most of its suppliers are from the Quebec City area. The rest of them are from the surrounding areas. I reviewed the list of all of the suppliers and they are from all over Quebec.

An announcement like this has a direct impact on a community like Lévis. We are talking about 5,000 workers, 5,000 good jobs. That gives those families predictability because these are long-term contracts. It provides predictability for Davie over the very long term. It will enable business owners to invest in their companies to supply Davie. This is the kind of thing that the government wants to do and that people need.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned the administrative burden.

Under Bill C-39, proponents would be allowed to do preliminary, early site work, but only if the minister deemed it in the public interest. Why is the government creating such subjective ministerial discretion instead of just simple, clear, predictable rules? Why add to the red tape?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I talked about something very important in my speech: the status quo. I have talked about it throughout my career, and I will keep talking about it. People often keep doing the same things while hoping to achieve different results.

We introduced a bill. We want to do things differently. We want to speed up projects and provide predictability for investors. Doing things faster does not mean being less rigorous. We must always be rigorous. We can walk and chew gum at the same time, as they say. That is what the government is going to do. This will provide predictability for businesses and contractors, who will be able to pursue projects. The process used to take up to eight years, which is way too long, but it will go much faster now.

We are doing the right thing. We are taking action, and that is what Canadians want.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way says that he repeats things over and over about the administrative burden. He did not answer the question before about ministerial discretion and what the public interest is. Maybe he will answer this instead. Part one adds regions of national interest and more administrative layers. Why does every Liberal solution involve expanding Ottawa's bureaucracy rather than getting out of the way? Why more bureaucracy? Why more discretion? Why more rules? I thought the member said he was against red tape.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, taking a closer look at the bill, clearly the goal is to fast-track projects. My colleague talked about bureaucracy. What we want is to make it easier to get projects done. We want to make everything more predictable over time. We want to speed things up. That is exactly what Canadians are asking us to do.

We have signed more than 20 trade agreements. Now we need to allow businesses to export their products. A delay of six or eight years is far too long. What we are saying now is that we will do this in less than a year, which will help accelerate projects. We are thinking about supply chains. I mentioned the Port of Québec earlier. Officials there want to invest, and we are giving them a chance to do so. We are providing predictability for investors.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a great honour to rise in this place on behalf of the great people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. It is my honour.

I would also like to take a brief moment to welcome our newest members in this place. I am certain I am not alone when I say that a member's first time sitting in the chamber is one they will never forget. Mind you, things work a bit differently these days from when I first came as a new member of Parliament. Much like our new members of Parliament, I too first joined this place as a rookie MP on the government side of the House with a majority, only in those days, if a majority government introduced an omnibus bill the same way the Liberal government has with Bill C-39, the crowds went wild, and I do not mean in a happy way either.

Whether “anti-democratic”, “dictator” or “bully”, the accusations and media headlines were rampant. Heck, omnibus bills were considered so bad that in one election, the Liberals even promised that, if elected, they would never, ever use them, and yet here we are. To be fair, I always looked at omnibus bills a little differently. I went on the record at the time to suggest that when facing challenging times, it is better to be accused of trying to do too much instead of too little, and indeed, this bill proposes to do some interesting, but also some very different, things.

Many have suggested the bill could have and should have been split up. We are still early in this debate, and I am sure that topic will be coming up. The Liberals will argue, and I quote them on this, “Canada’s new government has a mandate to build big, build bold, and build now.” Wait a moment. I got it wrong. That is what the Liberals said about the last mega bill that would build Canada strong. Members might remember it as Bill C-5.

For Bill C-39, the Liberals' new talking point is, “This legislation will give our country the tools we need to build more, better and more efficiently.” Members will, please, forgive me for getting those two quotes just a little mixed up. They sound so similar that it is easy to understand how the Liberals even get mixed up. Now, I credit the PMO's communication shop for creatively saying basically the same thing over and over again, only slightly differently so that, hopefully, people focus more on the words and less on the results.

Of course, as an opposition member of Parliament, I would be remiss if I did not point out that over this past year, not a single shovel went into the ground for a brand new project that did not exist more than a year ago. There were literally no new projects. It has gotten so desperate that Liberals now try to claim pre-existing projects as proof of progress. “Building at speeds not seen in a generation” was the promise, but in reality, it is about talking about building at speeds not seen in generations, but the actual building part, not so much, and the building part, let us all agree, is really the most important part.

Here we are today, once again, with a new bill that would “give our country the tools we need to build more, better and more efficiently.” Apparently, the reason nothing has been done over the past year is that we lacked the tools we need. This is the country that built the Canadian Pacific Railway, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Trans-Canada Highway and so much more. It is amazing how over the past 159 years, we have built the greatest country on earth, with all kinds of amazing achievements, but suddenly we no longer have the tools we need to build any more. This begs the question, what happened to the tools? Well, in 2015, the Liberals happened.

It is interesting that there is a segment in the backgrounder for Bill C-39 that reads:

the [Canadian Energy Regulator] will conduct the assessment under the Canada Energy Regulator Act, rather than through an integrated review panel with the Impact Assessment Agency. Since the introduction of the integrated review panel process in 2019, no project has met the threshold to be assessed by a panel.

Let me just read that last part one more time: “Since the introduction of the integrated review panel process in 2019, no project has met the threshold to be assessed by a panel.”

I hope everyone here heard that. Let us go over that again. Since the Liberals brought in the Impact Assessment Agency review process in 2019, “no project has met the threshold to be assessed by a panel.” How many projects? None, zero, zip, nada.

That is an incredible feat when we think about it. It has been seven long years and not a single project has ever met the threshold imposed by the Liberals. Here is the best part: along come the Liberals proposing to remove the very same red tape they themselves created. Think of all the lost opportunities over those seven years. It was so damaging.

I know that on the government side, there is a particular minister fond of saying, “We will take no lessons from the Conservatives”, unless, of course, it is axing the carbon tax, repealing the electric vehicle sales mandate, rolling back the planned capital gains tax increases or temporarily removing part of the federal fuel excise tax. These are all things that Conservatives called for.

However, let us be fair. We did not ask for some of the changes to the Canada Labour Code that are proposed in this bill. In fact, we are having a hard time even understanding where the Liberals came up with some of these proposals.

They said they spent the summer consulting different groups, but which groups and where? It all seems a bit suspicious to us. We all know that the bill also includes a new power that would allow the Minister of Labour to intervene to end a work stoppage, but only if the work stoppage is deemed to be contrary to the national interest.

That is where this bill becomes extremely concerning for Canadians. The modern Liberal government has gotten into a very bad habit of doing things that serve the interests of Liberal Party friends and insiders, rather than the interests of Canadians. If my colleagues doubt that, I will give them an example.

Not so many years ago, the Liberals gave the green light to and approved the Rogers takeover of Shaw. Critics warned the Liberals not to do that and warned what would happen if they did, but the Liberals of course know better. The Liberals promised that more jobs would be created and that rates would go down, and just in case there was any doubt about this, the minister promised that he would watch Rogers like a hawk after the takeover. What happened? Let us go through it.

Shaw was popular in my riding. Citizens started bringing in their new Rogers bills with rate increases. Even though they had contracts with Shaw, those contracts were raised by Rogers because the fine print allowed Rogers to charge more for the old Shaw equipment they had been renting. This happened to seniors and single mothers. As for the jobs that were promised by the minister, there is a new Rogers call centre in Morocco, and I am certain that the good people of Morocco probably appreciate those jobs.

This was a complete and total massive failure by the Liberals that benefited their friends on Bay Street and sold out Canadians on main street, like my constituents, and across the whole spectrum. As for the minister who promised to watch this deal like a hawk, he will say he does not take any lessons from Conservatives, or, it would appear, from anyone else for that matter, because there were lots of people who warned him.

Getting back to the bill we have at hand, it is easy to understand why many Canadians are a tad uneasy when the Liberals say that a Liberal minister gets to decide what is and what is not in the Canadian interest. People who have those concerns, of course, are even more skeptical because the Liberals packaged all of those changes up in a nice omnibus bill. I mention this last point for the benefit of the new Liberal members of Parliament who may be unaware of some of the greatest hits from previous Liberal governments that were authored by members of the current Liberal government.

Before I close, I also have to reference that this bill also proposes some changes from an environmental perspective. One of those changes is a timeline to complete certain reviews in one year. At the same time, the Liberals are also promising indigenous communities and environmental groups that everything is going to work out like it previously did, and telling them to relax and not worry. Believe it or not, when you propose to do things differently but promise that nothing will change, that causes people to worry, and even more so when it is buried in an omnibus bill, where some people think the Liberals intentionally did this shocker to avoid proper scrutiny.

Now, let us keep in mind that I am simply passing on concerns.

Madam Speaker, excuse me. I would like to take a moment to catch my breath.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member can take a little break.

The hon. member may continue if he is ready.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, bear in mind that I am merely passing on concerns that others have expressed to me, because, at the end of the day, choosing to introduce an omnibus bill is a choice, and that choice has consequences.

We must not forget that there is a reason why a previous Liberal government promised never to resort to omnibus bills. Of course, that promise was sincere, was it not?

Surely the Liberals would never make a promise they had no intention of keeping just to get elected, would they? Did they say they were going to spend less? I am getting off topic.

For a recap of where we are today, I feel it is a bit like a sci-fi franchise movie. In episode one, the government needed a big bill to make Canada strong, which is Bill C-5. About a year later, when everything promised in year one did not happen, it of course needed a sequel, another new omnibus bill, to make Canada strong, which is Bill C-39. I suspect next year or later in this Parliament we may live to see another so we can finish the trilogy.

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

Madam Speaker, It is important for us to recognize, as I pointed out yesterday on legislation, that often the government has a much larger agenda, and this is one of those examples. The legislation today is all about how we can actually take advantage of things, such as a half a trillion dollars of committed investments through an economic summit that was led by the Prime Minister of Canada. We want to see foreign investment come into Canada. One of the ways we can attract that is to have legislation of this nature passed through the House.

I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts with respect to the larger picture.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, one would assume that if someone wanted to invite capital to come to Canada we would make sure our permitting system worked well. Maybe the government thought Bill C-5 was enough. Maybe the feedback it got back was not, so now it needs to do a sequel. We will see this member for the trilogy.

The House resumed from December 5, 2025, consideration of the motion that An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are debating Bill C‑218, which seeks to specifically exclude patients with a mental disorder from being able to request an assessment of their condition to determine whether or not they are eligible for medical assistance in dying. Some of these patients have had a mental disorder for decades, 20 or 30 years. They have tried everything, all available treatments, have been treated for decades without significant improvement in their condition and have endured stigma and discrimination their entire lives. These are people whose decision-making capacity is established according to the rules, people for whom psychiatry can only offer a life indefinitely housed in palliative care with no cure. These people's suffering has become intolerable, but Bill C‑218 tells them to try again for their own good, because their only option is repeated treatment. They are told to suffer so that, maybe one day, they will be cured.

In June 2022, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying recommended that MAID be expanded to include mental disorders. The only two reservations it had were about how prepared clinics were to ensure safe and appropriate implementation, as well as the very short time frame leading up to the March 2023 deadline. Those reservations can be found in the conclusion of the June 2022 interim report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying.

However, in its latest report in 2026, the Special Joint Committee did a complete 180° and questioned the merits of expansion, despite proof that such a position is discriminatory; despite proof that the groundwork had been laid, according to the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers, the psychiatric associations of Canada and Quebec, the Department of Health and the Department of Justice; and despite the establishment of practice standards by the task group that the Liberal government funded to define the practice standards and required training for assessors and providers.

I find it troubling to stand here before legislators who support a blanket, definitive exclusion from MAID for patients with mental disorders, even though the exclusion is discriminatory and unconstitutional, yet who lack the courage to refer the matter to the Supreme Court to spare suffering patients from having to bear that burden. It speaks to ideological rigidness, unfortunate partisan politics and a flagrant lack of compassion. It is unbearable to hear constant claims that issues with accessing care and structural vulnerabilities supposedly lead patients to choose MAID over treatment, despite evidence to the contrary and without proposing a substantial increase in health transfers.

In terms of structural vulnerabilities, Health Canada data, annual reports on MAID in Canada, and a scientific study by James Downar and Kieran Quinn, entitled “Is Structural Marginalization Driving Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in Canada?”, have concluded that structural vulnerabilities do not play a significant role in MAID requests.

When it comes to MAID, it was not the House but the Supreme Court that did the work. Back in 2015, it forced the House of Commons to amend the Criminal Code to respond to requests from patients whose constitutional rights were being violated. The Bloc Québécois believes that the Carter decision and the Baudouin ruling justify opening up MAID to people with a mental disorder whose chronic suffering has become intolerable.

On what grounds should the government undermine or restrict the right to self-determination of a person with a mental disorder, as long as their decision-making capacity is not affected? On what grounds should chronic suffering that has become intolerable be considered reasonable? On what grounds would discrimination be reasonable?

The role of the state is not to claim it knows better than a person facing unbearable suffering what is right for them in a matter as personal as their own death. The role of the state is to ensure that the conditions are in place for that person to make a free and informed choice.

The right to self-determination, free and informed consent, informed decision making and the exercise of a patient's decision-making capacity, when this has been established in accordance with best practices, all run counter to the medical paternalism that still seems all too present in psychiatry.

We must ask ourselves the following: On what grounds should certain patients with a mental disorder whose suffering has become intolerable and has been established as chronic, and whose medical records demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that all available treatments have been administered without resulting in a permanent improvement or significant relief from intolerable suffering, be discriminated against or forced to continue suffering?

Some psychiatrists argue that it is impossible to determine that a mental disorder is irreversible. They question whether a psychiatrist can establish a prognosis or even diagnosis of incurability. However, all of these issues are clearly explained in the expert panel's report, which proposes guidelines and precautions to be taken for the safe and appropriate provision of medical assistance in dying for people with mental disorders. I urge everyone to consult it.

Madam Speaker, the members opposite are really bothering me because they are laughing and talking. If they do not want to listen to me, they are free to go outside. I ask that you intervene and stop the clock.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind hon. members that it is important to remain silent and listen when a member has the floor.

The hon. member may resume his speech. He has three minutes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, a few psychiatrists use anecdotal, unsubstantiated claims to assert that every mental illness is treatable or curable, but they also say that psychiatry is wrong about both prognoses and diagnoses. Those psychiatrists cannot explain why we should rely on anecdotal, unsubstantiated accounts involving patients whom they say would have met the MAID eligibility criteria and safeguards set out in the expert panel report when those psychiatrists have no experience with MAID, either as assessors or providers, and when they are are effectively opposed to track 2 or MAID in general.

The report by the expert panel that proposed the conditions under which MAID could be expanded to mental disorders is clear. Just because a patient makes a request does not mean they will be eligible. During her testimony, Stefanie Green explained that the following individuals are ineligible: a person in a suicidal crisis; a person who has recently been admitted for treatment and diagnosed; a person whose request is based on structural vulnerabilities; and a person who refuses, without justification, all treatments that could improve their condition. A person is also ineligible if accessible and effective treatments are available or if the assessors are unable to determine eligibility based on all or part of the criteria.

Evidence of de facto accessibility, linked to a level of preparedness for the safe and appropriate provision of medical assistance in dying for people with mental disorders, was demonstrated in the recent study by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. Those who oppose MAID must do so for other reasons.

The Bloc Québécois opposes Bill C-218 and proposes that the dispute over whether the exclusion of patients constitutes discrimination be clarified by the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, we ask that the sunset clause not be removed prematurely and indefinitely. The final recommendation is that recommendation 16 of the expert panel report, which calls for establishing prospective monitoring at the conclusion of the assessment process, be implemented as an additional clinical safeguard.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of Bill C-218, the right to recover act, introduced by my friend, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City. The title of the bill fully reflects the substance of the bill. It is the right to recover: to give persons struggling with mental health challenges hope and help, instead of state-sanctioned, state-administered death, by putting an indefinite pause on the Liberal government's ill-thought-out expansion of MAID where mental illness is the sole underlying condition.

I commend the member for Cloverdale—Langley City for bringing forward the bill, because it is absolutely needed. We need legislation to be passed by Parliament. Otherwise, this ill-thought-out expansion will take effect in March 2027.

I have to say that it should never have been this way. It should never have come to this. The planned expansion is a master class in how not to do policy and how not to legislate.

Back in 2021, the then Liberal justice minister David Lametti, at the eleventh hour, accepted a radical Senate amendment, which he initially opposed, that set the train in motion for the expansion of MAID for mental illness, effective March 2023. There was no meaningful study, no meaningful consultation and no meaningful debate. The Liberals simply rammed it through. This was on a question of life and death concerning among the most vulnerable persons in Canadian society. It could not be more reckless than that.

Here we are, more than five years later, and the planned expansion has been nothing short of a mess. It has been completely shambolic, including the fact that the government has been all but forced to introduce two emergency bills to delay implementation because it did not do its homework at the outset.

Had the Liberals done their homework, they would have heard loud and clear what experts, including leading psychiatrists, have been saying, and that is that MAID for mental illness is a really bad idea, that it cannot be implemented safely for a multitude of reasons, not least of which include two unresolved clinical issues.

The first of those issues is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict irremediability. In other words, it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict whether someone suffering from a mental illness will get better. Indeed, many mental illnesses are remediable, and they are very difficult to predict in terms of a prognosis.

As Dr. Karin Neufeld, who is one of Canada's most renowned psychiatrists and is none other than the chair of the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada, put it in her brief to the Special Joint Committee on MAID, which is studying this very issue, “Psychiatric disorders lack reliable biomarkers, follow non-linear trajectories, and frequently improve after years of severe impairment.” Accordingly, Dr. Neufeld concluded that psychiatrists are poor predictors of long-term outcomes. Simply put, modern psychiatry lacks the tools to predict irremediability in individual cases of mental illness. It is so uncertain in terms of predicting irremediability, that studies show that psychiatrists get it right less than 50% of the time.

As Dr. Sonu Gaind, who is the past chair of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, told the special joint committee, one would be better off flipping a coin to predict irremediability. This is on a matter, again, involving life and death. What that means is that if this expansion were to go forward in March 2027, or at all, tens of thousands of Canadians who could get better, recover and lead productive lives will have their lives prematurely ended.

This prospect is untenable, and it is unconscionable. The uncertainty around predicting irremediability not only renders MAID for mental illness a completely reckless and dangerous policy, but also makes it impossible to administer in compliance with the law. This is because a prerequisite to qualifying for MAID is that an individual must have a grievous and irremediable condition. Given that it is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately predict irremediability in cases of mental illness, the legal basis for MAID cannot be satisfied, full stop. Therefore, we have not only a clinical issue, but also a major legal impediment to this expansion going forward.

The second major clinical issue identified is that it is difficult to distinguish, in cases of mental illness, a rational request for aid versus one motivated by suicidal ideation. This is because, in many cases, suicidal ideation, suicidal thoughts, are a symptom of the illness, and that is underscored by the fact that, in more than 90% of suicide deaths in Canada, mental illness is a factor. What that means is, if this were to go forward, long-standing suicide prevention efforts would be undermined. The mental health law would be upended, because given that suicidal ideation is often a symptom of mental illness, it begs the very practical question of which requests for MAID would merit intervention and suicide prevention versus the granting of MAID.

Given these unresolved clinical issues and other issues, and the clear opposition from the vast majority of psychiatrists, including the 17 chairs of psychiatry representing all 17 medical schools in Canada, who penned a letter to the Minister of Justice saying to put an indefinite pause on this, the Liberals twice, as I alluded to, introduced emergency legislation to kick the can down the road. They kicked the can down the road yet again with a new date of implementation, that being March 2027. Guess what. Nothing has changed. The same clinical issues remain unresolved, and there is no evidence that they will be or can be resolved in the foreseeable future, if ever.

This is why the special joint committee on MAID, which wrapped up its work in June, of which I was a member, of which the member for Cloverdale—Langley City was a member, recommended that the government stop kicking the can down the road and simply put an indefinite pause on this ill-thought-out expansion. I would note that the recommendation was a unanimous recommendation from Conservative and Liberal MPs on the committee.

The government likes to claim it makes decisions based upon evidence, that it make decisions based upon the facts. Well, if that is so, then to follow the evidence, there is only one, objectively speaking, reasonable course of action for the government to take, which is to admit it got it wrong in 2021 and to reverse course by putting an indefinite pause on this expansion. Bill C-218, the right to recover act, provides a clear path forward to do just that.

Let us pass Bill C-218.