House of Commons Hansard #142 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was project.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Building Canada Strong Act Second reading of Bill C-39. The bill seeks to enhance economic competitiveness by streamlining infrastructure approvals and modernizing trade corridors. Liberals argue these changes strengthen supply chains and improve efficiency. Conversely, the Conservatives claim the proposal is all talk, no results, creating bureaucracy without delivering tangible projects. The Bloc Québécois opposes the legislation, characterizing it as an ecological betrayal that undermines environmental assessments and weakens workers' rights through expanded ministerial powers. 18900 words, 2 hours.
Criminal Code Second reading of Bill C-218. The bill, C-218, aims to indefinitely exclude patients with mental disorders from eligibility for medical assistance in dying. Conservatives argue the legislation is essential to prevent suicide and prioritize recovery, while the Bloc Québécois criticizes the exclusion as discriminatory. Liberals emphasize the legal complexity and personal nature of end-of-life decisions, while proponents urge Parliament to restore hope and care. 6900 words, 1 hour.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I have a few thoughts I would like to share with the House on the legislation and what it is that the member is actually proposing. With what the previous speaker just mentioned, it is important for us to recognize that the government took action because of a superior court decision that was made in the province of Quebec.
Both the member and I have actually been around since the creation of the MAID legislation, so we are very—
Bill C-218 Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
May I interrupt the hon. member?
While members were speaking on that side of the House, we had calm. Can we continue to have calm and let the member make his speech?
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I think it is really important that we put into perspective why we are where we are today. This is not something for which a political party made the decision. The member who just spoke, as well as the members opposite who were around, back in 2015, like myself, just need to reflect back to that time and what was taking place. For example, the Supreme Court of Canada put it on the political agenda, so there was a need for the House of Commons to respond to it. It was the Carter v. Canada case, which obligated all of us at that time to deal with the issue.
The government worked collaboratively and there was a high sense of co-operation on the issue. After all, what could be more personal than having to deal with the issue of medical assistance in dying, and having to make difficult decisions as to when to say no to a medical treatment, or to have a medical treatment that would ultimately lead to the death of an individual? It is very much a personal decision. I think that we need to amplify that. Those personal decisions are best made by the individual working with the experts they have access to, and having those heartfelt discussions with family members and often close friends.
I think we often underestimate the important contributions and understanding that health care providers, in particular, and others provide while dealing with the difficult issue of death. For those who are dealing with it on a more frequent basis, if they go to hospice care facilities or personal care facilities, they will often find those health care professionals and others in situations where they have to deal with death on a regular basis. As we all know, it is a part of life. If we then factor in the difficult complications that come to the table with individuals who have a desire to seek MAID, there have been a great deal of arguments brought forward. The decision was made in February or maybe March 2015, but the Supreme Court started hearing about it in 2014.
The passion was very real. We got to see some of that passion. If members recall, we had a special committee of the House. I believe it might have even been a joint committee that included members of the Senate. Whether members were on the committee or not, there was a great deal of discussion that took place between committee members and other members of different caucuses. I can recall members inside the chamber delivering speeches on MAID, even talking to some of the individuals who were involved in the lobby rooms. We would often see tears while listening to their personal stories. All one needs to do is to review Hansard during the second reading. Even back then, I spent a lot of my time on the floor of the House here.
However, I can say that the committee that studied it after second reading, and even prior to second reading, was deeply engaged. It went on at great length, for hours and hours, with personal stories of witnesses who appeared before it. It was not an easy decision. Sitting back, what I witnessed was some members of the Conservative Party advocating one way and others advocating another way, as it was with the Liberal Party and other entities within the House, because it was based on sharing our free thoughts, having a free vote and so forth.
It was difficult, but ultimately a vast majority of members of Parliament voted in favour of Canada's having MAID legislation. That is something that was not done lightly or taken lightly, and I think we need to emphasize that in this debate. It was very thorough, and ultimately, members from all political entities ended up voting in favour of Canada's having MAID legislation.
A number of years after that, as I alluded to at the very beginning and as the previous speaker was making reference to, was the issue of mental illness and whether it should or should not be part of MAID. Once again that was put on the table, brought to the House of Commons, because of a decision from a superior court.
Bill C-218 Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Can we allow the hon. member to finish his speech?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, the issue of MAID came before the House again because of a superior court decision in Quebec. That we can say.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, they can call it what they want. It is still a superior court in Quebec.
Moving forward, the issue has been brought to the House, and a decision has been made. There is a sunset clause within the legislation that does need to be addressed.
On the issue of mental illness, ever since I have been a parliamentarian, I can remember Dr. Gulzar Cheema, one of my colleagues in the Manitoba legislature, arguing and articulating on why it was so important that we have not only a department of health but also a department of mental health, because we need much more to recognize mental health as part of our health system. There are severe files within mental health that I believe, if this legislation were to pass, would never, ever get any consideration, and I do not believe that would be appropriate.
Given the very importance of the issue of mental health, let us have more discussions. I would like more provinces to establish departments of mental health, but at the end of the day, I do not necessarily believe the exclusion is the way to go.
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan.
Canadians sent us here to deal with many problems affecting them personally and impacting the country as a whole. There is no doubt that what we are debating right now is a very serious issue facing our society. I first want to thank my colleague the member for Cloverdale—Langley City for her leadership in bringing forward the right to recover act, Bill C-218. She has already brought hope to so many people and approached such a difficult topic with the compassion and the urgency that it deserves.
Not only has the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South seconded the bill, but along the way he has done a lot of work advocating for it. He had the courage to share his own personal story of battling years of severe depression and surviving suicide attempts. While telling his full story, which includes a challenging process of recovery, he shone a light on a struggle facing thousands of Canadians and their loved ones.
To give us more perspective, here are some of the latest numbers from the federal public health website. Each year in Canada, there are 4,750 deaths by suicide and 20,000 hospitalizations caused by self-harm. There are 100,000 reported suicide attempts, along with 250,000 people who make suicide plans and 840,000 people with serious thoughts of suicide. That means every single day there are 250 Canadians who make reported suicide attempts, 700 who make suicide plans and 2,300 who have serious suicidal thoughts. Let us allow all of that to sink in for a minute.
We often talk about having better awareness about mental health, but we also need to build on that by actively meeting people's needs and providing real protection for those who are vulnerable. With this bill, both of these MPs have moved us forward in that important goal.
At the moment, we are in a situation where the current law would allow access to MAID for people who have a desire to die solely on the basis of their mental illness. If we think about it for a second, we can start to imagine how that creates an opening in the medical system where it becomes easier for a suicidal person to end their life. In other words, it is pretty clear that we are really talking about assisted suicide.
As Canadians learn that this is happening, they are increasingly against the idea, but currently, if nothing changes, the Criminal Code would allow eligibility for assisted suicide on the basis of mental illness alone starting next spring. As disturbing as it is to think about, it is not too far in the future. However, Bill C-218 provides a simple solution. By a short amendment to the Criminal Code, it would stop the expansion of MAID for mental illness before it takes effect.
Just recently, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying studied this exact issue and came to the same conclusion. Based on the consistent testimony of witnesses and experts, the committee's report officially recommended an amendment to the Criminal Code to exclude mental illness as the sole underlying medical condition for MAID. This recommendation reflects a consensus across party lines, and now that we have Bill C-218 in front of us, it just makes sense for us to proceed with it to achieve the final result we would like to see.
Earlier this year, I had the chance to work with the special joint committee as it carried out the study. That happened because I ended up filling in for one of the regular members, the member for Cariboo—Prince George—Omineca, who was supposed to be on that committee but had to spend some time away to recover from surgery he had on his knee.
I want to make a special mention of something here. It made perfect sense for him to participate in the study because he has been one of Canada's strongest advocates for mental health. He has worked tirelessly for years to make the 988 suicide prevention hotline a reality. After his motion passed unanimously in the House, it still took a few years before it finally launched, thanks in large part to his persistent efforts with introducing legislation, setting timelines and helping to keep up the pressure on the government to get the job done.
It needed so much time and effort to accomplish, even though it was a project that already had broad support across parties. It was worth doing because we know that 988 has made a real difference and has been saving people's lives.
We all support suicide prevention. We have a good idea of how important it is to be prepared so that we can respond with compassion and provide resources to people who are suicidal. On the other side of the equation, we also need to be extremely cautious of sending the wrong signals or messages, which could push a vulnerable group of people in a worse direction.
We had a representative from 988 appear as a witness in this study on assisted suicide for mental illness. She provided data to us based on her team's experience:
...on frontline signals from 988, up to 7% of interactions on the service refer to MAID. Critically, among those who reference MAID, 74% endorsed thoughts of suicide in the past two days, compared with 48% among other contacts. In short, interactions with our national suicide crisis line that reference MAID are associated with substantially higher suicidal ideation. That's not a theoretical concern; it's a real, measurable, elevated risk among people who mentioned MAID to Canada's suicide prevention service.
The same witness also went on to say:
My recommendation is straightforward. Do not expand MAID to cases where the sole underlying condition is a mental disorder. This recommendation aligns with the position of the International Association for Suicide Prevention that the overlap between MAID requests and suicide makes distinguishing between them impossible. MAID for mental illness will undermine suicide prevention by positioning MAID as a viable alternative to treatment.
This was one of the key concerns raised during the committee study. As this witness said, which was a point echoed by others, it is impossible to distinguish a desire for death inspired by mental illness from being suicidal.
Dr. Sandip Singh Gandham expressed, “I worry that in some cases, we may not be responding to an autonomous, enduring request for assisted dying, but rather to the voice of the illness itself.”
We also heard the story of Donna Duncan in B.C. Her daughter, Alicia, appeared as a witness and has been raising the alarm on her mother's case, which is directly related to the issue before us today. Donna was approved for and died by MAID in British Columbia in 2021, only hours after being released from a psychiatric unit and following a suicide attempt.
Donna was clearly suicidal and facing a mental health crisis, and all her blood tests came back normal. She had no terminal condition. She should not have been a candidate for MAID, yet the system deemed her eligible for track 1 MAID because, under the influence of a mental disorder, she was starving herself. In this case, the existing safeguards failed despite the family's best efforts and despite Donna's own admission that she did not want to die. She just felt deprived of proper care.
If a mistake was made in this case or any others, what is the remedy supposed to be? Death is irreversible. As the Duncan family found out, the only person authorized to access Donna's MAID assessment records is Donna herself, and Donna has died. Neither her family nor even the police can access the records, and neither the regulators nor the B.C Privacy Commissioner is prepared to override that. Realistically, then, how is anyone supposed to investigate whether the law was followed?
There are also concerns about new conflicts with providing patient care in the relationship that therapists have with clients. Are Canadian care providers there to fight relentlessly for every last person who can be helped or are they there to process people according to their requests and wishes, even if they could eventually recover in the future from their mental illness?
Dr. Jitender Sareen put his finger on this when he said, “This goes to the core psychiatric practice, which is grounded in assessing and treating hopelessness and preventing suicide.”
Is the psychiatrist there to help prevent suicide or enable it? What does it do to a psychiatrist's ability to do the former if the patient knows all the time that all they have to do to have their life ended is refuse to co-operate on therapeutic help that might work?
In that context, if MAID is available as an option, it becomes a factor on its own, which can undermine the effectiveness of therapy. Along with the general problem of recognizing suicidality for what it is, medical and psychiatric professionals also share deep concerns with the idea of irremediability and predicting patient outcomes while considering all the complexity of treatments for mental illnesses.
Dr. Karin Neufeld testified about a middle-aged patient of hers who had been suffering from a major depressive illness since childhood. He was seeking a referral for MAID and would have qualified, but after undergoing treatment with this particular therapist, he has now recovered the will to live. We have heard about similar cases as well.
Across Canada, people struggling with a mental illness are contemplating MAID not because they want to die, but because they are not getting proper support. They come from all walks of life. In this area, we heard about particular concerns related to indigenous communities and people with disabilities.
Our approach to allowing assisted suicide for mental illness is something that medical professionals, psychiatrists, advocacy groups and the United Nations have called on us to rethink. Parliament has itself pushed the deadline back multiple times and our special committee has now recommended indefinitely suspending it. We should listen to Canadians and listen to the committee and finally reverse this expansion. Let us pass Bill C-218.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Madam Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-218, a bill that would repeal the coming into force of MAID for mental illness as the sole underlying cause for concern.
Canada is becoming a parable. It is becoming an example of what not to do for the world. The United Kingdom recently had a discussion about introducing euthanasia or MAID to the country. It looked at Canada and said, “That is not what we want to do”, and it actually rejected it.
I remember back in 2016-17 making arguments in the discussion about introducing MAID into Canada and calling it a slippery slope. I can say that I was wrong when I said it was a slippery slope. It turns out that it was a cliff. We had no idea that we were going to fall off this cliff. One-fifth of people who die in Canada die because of MAID. This is a major cause for concern.
We can look to other jurisdictions that are very similar to Canada. California has demographics similar to Canada's, has similar political understandings and has a similar population, yet in the same time frame, we saw that 13,000 people in Canada used the MAID program and only 300 people used the assisted suicide program in California. Something is seriously wrong with our system.
When MAID was brought into Canada, there were two criteria for it. Someone had to have a reasonably foreseeable death, something that we argued against. We said that was nebulous; we did not know what that meant. Most people's death is reasonably foreseeable. We will all die. That was one criterion for MAID, along with the fact that a condition had to be grievous and irremediable.
That was then challenged in the courts. I recall that we had just passed the MAID regime through Parliament. Parliament had spoken as to what the law ought to be in Canada. Just a couple of years later, it was challenged by two people from Quebec, and it was overturned at the first level of court in Quebec.
David Lametti, the justice minister at the time, refused to defend the work of Parliament. His personal opinions on MAID and the direction it should go were well known, but as the justice minister of Canada, it was his responsibility to defend what Parliament had put in place, and he refused to or was negligent and did not do that. He did not challenge the lower court decision in Quebec.
Therefore, that decision stood, and that then placed an arbitrary deadline upon Parliament to come up with a solution. That is how we got the so-called track 2 MAID, and along with that came the idea, which they put in in 2026 and then extended out to 2027, that MAID for mental illness should become a thing here in Canada.
There has been a committee study since then that looked at this. I tried to answer this question: Is Canada ready for MAID for mental illness? We heard over and over from people who said that if somebody is suicidal and wants to die, we cannot determine who will get better and who will not get better. There is no test for this. That is reason it was extended for one more year, because they said we had to continue to work on it.
Here we are, about a year out from that, and there is still no test today. When somebody calls the suicide prevention hotline, there is no test to say that someone is going to come around, that we can put them into treatment, they will recover and have a desire to live again and we should put them into a suicide prevention program.
There is no test for people to say they will send one person to the suicide prevention program and another person will be offered MAID. There is no test to say one person is going to recover and another person is not. We just do not know. The default should be that people having suicidal ideations will get better. We will give them treatment, support them and try to remove the things in their lives causing the suicidal ideation.
I would point Canadians to the work by my colleague, the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, and the many speeches he has given on this, saying that, if this had been the law several years ago, he would not be here today because he would have availed himself of it. Today, he is a member of Parliament and a high-functioning individual. He is laughing at that. It is a true story. I thank him for being vulnerable with us, sharing these stories over and over again, telling this story and being a champion for Bill C-218.
Bill C-218 would make it so that we have suicide prevention in this country and only suicide prevention in this country. It is not for the Government of Canada to set up a program where some people get suicide prevention treatment and some people do not get suicide prevention treatment. That is not a country any of us want to live in, where we say suicide prevention is good for one person but not good for another person. We heard over and over again at committee that there is no test to determine the difference.
With that, I look forward to voting on this bill. I will be voting for it. I am very hopeful this bill will pass and we will once again restore suicide prevention in this country.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Madam Speaker, this is a bill that is very personal. It is an issue that is very personal. Through the course of the work of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, we heard from a number of experts who have worked with patients going through challenges, much like those I went through 15, 16 years ago, people who felt that they were better off dead than alive. These are people who deserve support. These are people who deserve treatment. These are people who should be welcomed into wanting to live, not assisted with end of life.
The bill from my colleague from Cloverdale—Langley City, who so eloquently called it the right to recover act, is a bill that would do exactly what the title says. It would offer people a right to recover. It would offer hope. It would offer light to people in the darkest moments of their lives. I was so honoured, with my story, to be able to be a champion for this, even before my colleague introduced her bill. I was equally honoured to be named to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, at which we were able to tackle—
Bill C-218 Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
I have just been informed that the hon. member has already spoken to this bill and it is not appropriate that he speaks to it again. My apologies.
I would invite the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City to rise for her right of reply.
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Madam Speaker, I will begin by grounding the end of this debate in remembering young Kiano Vafaeian who lost his life to MAID. He was 26 years old, and he had lived with type 1 diabetes since he was four. After a serious car accident as a teenager, he also struggled with his mental health, and later he lost vision in one eye.
In 2022, when he was just 23 years old, Kiano sought MAID in Ontario. His mother, Margaret, fought desperately to keep her son alive, and she succeeded for a time, but Kiano had become obsessed with getting MAID. He continued to request it from Ontario Health until they told him straight out that he would never qualify in Ontario, but shockingly, they suggested other jurisdictions he could contact in his quest to end his life. Sadly, he found a willing doctor in B.C., where he received MAID on December 30, 2025, from the now infamous Dr. Ellen Wiebe. He was 26 years old.
When I heard Kiano's story, I could not stop thinking about my own little brother Johan. In 2023, he was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. He knew he was dying, but he wanted to live. However, the medical staff at the Abbotsford hospital seemed to want to end his life. While lying on a bed in the hallway on the oncology ward, he was asked not once, not twice, not three, four or five times but six separate times if he wanted MAID. They were relentless. They pressed him, saying that they did not think they would be able to control his pain, scaring him out of his wits, but he still had a will to live.
I am very proud of my little brother for standing up for his life, for having the courage and the commitment to make a statement that his life was still worth living, even if it was for only another eight or ten months. He had time to mend fences, make friends with the people at the hospice and say goodbye to his family.
This is why Bill C-218 is necessary, because not everyone will have the will and the ability to fight the way my brother fought. Not everyone will have the strength to say no six times. When someone is sick, frightened, depressed or unable to see any hope for tomorrow, surely the responsibility of our medical system is not to reinforce the despair but to protect them while they are vulnerable and help them find their way back to hope.
This is particularly true when we are talking about mental illness. For years, Conservatives have warned that expanding MAID to people suffering solely from mental illness crosses a line we should not cross. We were told that the safeguards would be enough. We were told that the system could be made ready. However, the implementation has been delayed again and again, while the fundamental question remains unanswered: How can we declare that a person's mental illness is irremediable when we cannot reliably know that they will never recover? However, we do know one thing with absolute certainty: Once that life is ended, there is no tomorrow.
When we first debated the bill, members told us to wait for the special joint committee to do its work. Well, it has. The committee heard the evidence and recommended that people whose sole underlying condition is mental illness be indefinitely excluded from MAID eligibility. Parliament asked for that review. We now have its answer.
If the concern with Bill C-218 is the wording and the use of the term “mental disorder” instead of “mental illness”, then let us fix the wording at committee. We are prepared to work with the government at committee to make the technical changes. A bill should not be defeated at second reading over one word when there is agreement on the principle. Time is of the essence. The scheduled expansion is coming in March. Let us work together and send the bill to committee.
The measure of a compassionate society is not how efficiently it helps people die. It is whether in the moment when someone can no longer see the value of their own life, the rest of us are prepared to see it for them. Our answer to suffering should be care. Our answer to despair should be hope. When someone believes there is no possibility of recovery, Canada should never be the one to agree with them. That is why I am asking my colleagues to vote for Bill C-218. Give Canadians the time, the care and the hope that they need. Give them the right to recover.
Bill C-218 Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
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.
Bill C-218 Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 7, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Madam Speaker, here we are just three days into the fall sitting of the House, and I am once again having to drag the government back into the House for an adjournment debate to protect our universal public health care system.
Back in April, I asked a question during question period referencing the fact that the Minister of Health stood here and called herself “the guardian of the Canada Health Act”. After months of delay, she has failed to act while Alberta Premier Danielle Smith expands American-style pay-for-access diagnostics and two-tiered health care. Canadians cannot afford more stalling while our universal health care system is being undermined.
Since that time, on September 1, Alberta's Bill 11 has landed on our doorstep. The Canadian Health Coalition, which I want to thank for its tremendous work advocating for our public health care system, commissioned a legal opinion stating that Bill 11 is the most serious threat against public universal health care we have seen since the Canada Health Act was passed in 1984.
The first parts of Premier Smith's draconian Bill 11 in Alberta just recently came into force at the beginning of this month, with the rest being enacted in the coming months. Bill 11 opens the door to the privatization of public health care in Canada. As Friends of Medicare has so succinctly said, we must slam it shut.
Shockingly, despite my repeated attempts at ringing the alarm bells around Alberta's Bill 11 here in the House, through the media and in many meetings with the Minister of Health asking that she enforce the Canada Health Act to protect our public health care system from a threat that no one voted for, it was not until the eve of the recent coming into force of the bill that the minister finally said that she would be considering the ramifications of the bill.
If the minister is truly the guardian, why is she taking so long to enforce the law and stop the erosion of our public health care system? This is an issue of national unity. What can happen in Alberta does not necessarily stay in Alberta.
Canadians are united in their opposition to the insults and damage flowing from the American President towards Canada. The Prime Minister has been travelling abroad and hosting summits with billionaires here at home, so what happened to “elbows up” and “Canada strong”? Protecting our health care is Canada strong. That is nation building, but eroding our public health care system through inaction and failure to enforce the Canada Health Act is not Canada strong. It weakens Canada. It is not Canadian. It erodes the security of the very thing Canadians most closely identify with as part of being Canadian. Canadians do not want American-style health care, the queue-jumping for people with money or the so-called dual practice, which is now under way in Alberta.
I will ask the government this again. Why has it not enforced the Canada Health Act to prevent the erosion of our public health care system, something that Canadians identify with in our shared values as a healthy and inclusive society? People should use their health care card, not their credit card, to get the help and services they need when it comes to their health.
Ryan Turnbull LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for the collaborative working relationship that we have had for quite a number of years. He is a great guy and a great representative for his community. I understand his question, and just for the record, I was not dragged here. I volunteered to stay to answer his question this evening.
Our public health care system is a point of pride, that is for sure, for all Canadians, including all Albertans. Our government will always work to defend our health care system because we understand that access to care should be based on someone's need, not someone's ability to pay. Furthermore, we recognize that our universal health care system underpins our economic strength. To build Canada strong, we need healthy Canadians. However, at the same time, all of us can see that our health care system is under strain. While provinces and territories are responsible for delivering health care, we all know that the federal government plays a key role in supporting the provinces. All of us need to work together to make sure that Canadians have the strong health care system they need and deserve.
We have seen how provinces and territories are responding to these challenges with new ideas and determination. They are finding new ways to bring care closer to Canadians, by expanding the roles of nurse practitioners, pharmacists and midwives; embracing virtual care; and even training the health care professionals we will need for the future. There is no doubt that this is important work, which is why we have taken a collaborative approach with all provinces and territories, including Alberta, that respects their jurisdiction to explore innovative ways to improve access and care while strengthening the public universal health care system that we all take pride in.
That does not mean that provinces and territories have free reign to ignore the principles of the Canada Health Act. As the Minister of Health has said repeatedly, she has been in close contact with Minister LaGrange, as she has been with all her provincial and territorial counterparts, to talk about how we can best support Alberta in strengthening our health care system and not eroding it. Likewise, as the minister has noted, Health Canada officials are working closely with Government of Alberta officials to ensure that the principles of the Canada Health Act are fully respected.
A collaborative approach between our government and the Government of Alberta has always produced stronger results, and we will continue to work in that direction to benefit all Albertans and all Canadians.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Madam Speaker, I have deep respect for my colleague. I want to thank him for volunteering tonight and for coming in.
I am going to ask him to volunteer to stand up against a province that is in violation of the Canada Health Act. They are moving toward a private model. That is clear. This undermines the Canada Health Act. It is the responsibility of the government to enforce it.
If the government is truly the guardian of our public health care system, it needs to act. It needs to act now. Innovation is one thing, but breaking the law and the rules of the country is another. That is the responsibility of the government. It is the NDP that is showing up here at night. I am volunteering to show up, to stand up for Canadians, because no other party is coming in here to stand up against the privatization of our health care system. We will stand strong to protect our public universal health care system. I hope the government will act and act soon.
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his acknowledgement and respect for me as a member of Parliament, which I share with him and reciprocate completely.
We can have disagreements in the House, but on this I do not think we disagree. In fact, what I am saying is that the Government of Canada is deeply committed to preserving the principles that are embedded in the Canada Health Act. We are working hand in hand with provincial and territorial partners to strengthen our health care system at a time when we know we need that strong health care system to lift Canadians up, to make sure that we can build a strong Canada and a strong economy, and to assert our sovereignty. It is essential to the country. We all take pride in the universal health care system.
I have had many debates and issues with the Province of Ontario and how it manages our health care system. I share some of my colleagues' concerns about making sure that we uphold the Canada Health Act and ensuring that provinces and territories are accountable to that and accountable for the funding that is transferred from the federal government.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Madam Speaker, before the government's summer vacation, I asked the government why it was putting trade talks with the United States in jeopardy to protect the Prime Minister's corporate friends instead of fighting modern-day slavery.
The reality is that since 2021, the Canada Border Services Agency has seized only two shipments of goods that were made using forced labour: a shipment of textiles back in 2024 and a shipment of frozen seafood in 2025. Both of these shipments were subsequently released back to the companies. That is it: these two shipments suspected of slavery stopped in five years. Meanwhile, the United States' border security stopped over 7,000 shipments, valued at over $75 million, for suspected forced labour violations in just the first six months of this year.
The Prime Minister and his government, including the member opposite, love to point to Bill S-211, the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act, as evidence of how tough Canada is. However, I would point out that this law only exists because of the hard work of former Liberal member of Parliament John McKay and Senator Miville-Dechêne, along with the support of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. In fact, the government dragged its feet for years before being forced to take action, so we had to bring in a private member's bill, Bill S-211.
Then we found out last December that the government had quietly changed the directive of Bill S-211 to create an exemption not found in the original legislation, stripping reporting obligations from distributors and retailers who could be profiting from forced labour in their supply chains. Human rights advocates and anti-slavery groups are asking why. The only answer that could be is that it would benefit the Prime Minister's corporate friends. In fact, I wonder how many of these elite corporate friends were at the Prime Minister's pre-summit fundraiser last week.
We also know that China has been using Canada as a transhipment hub to get its products into the United States because it knows how weak our enforcement has been and how strong the American enforcement has been when it comes to products made by forced labour. It is no wonder the United States is launching a forced labour investigation into our country. We have only stopped two shipments in the last five years. Our supply chain law is secretly watered down to benefit Liberal friends, and the Liberals have been turning a blind eye to China's use of Canada as a transhipment hub.
I and many of my Conservative colleagues have been raising these concerns for years in the House, and former Liberal member of Parliament John McKay has also been urging the government to take more action to fight slavery, but we have seen no action from the government to do anything. The Prime Minister and his government ministers have insisted that Canada's measures were robust, that they were strong. Really? Then why, after years of declaring that Canada had what it needed to fight slavery in the supply chains, did the government suddenly introduce Bill C-35, an act respecting the prohibition of importing goods produced by forced labour?
Perhaps, as with other issues like crime, immigration and housing, the Liberals are suddenly realizing that Conservatives have been right all along. Perhaps Canada needs to fight slavery abroad, and perhaps temporarily stopping one shipment suspected of using forced labour every two to three years is not a robust system.
I do not have the time to go into the abandoned CORE office, but the government's absolute failure to tackle slavery in supply chains has put our CUSMA talks in jeopardy. Did the Prime Minister walk away from the table because the United States demanded we take real action on slavery? Did the Prime Minister walk away from the negotiations because he was not able to get supply chain exemptions to forced labour for his corporate friends? We do not know, because the Liberals will not release the deal that they rejected. What we do know is that Canadians are paying the price for the government's inaction on modern-day slavery.
In my riding of Peace River—Westlock, increased software lumber tariffs are threatening entire—
International TradeAdjournment Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Rob Oliphant LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree in the House that goods that are made with forced labour have absolutely no place in our supply chains. No one should be trapped in exploitation so others can benefit from lower costs. Canadians all want confidence that our economy is built on fairness and not built on human suffering. As we diversify trade and secure investment, Canada is firmly committed to ensuring our supply chains reflect the highest standards of integrity.
Enforcing a prohibition on goods produced with forced labour is an inherently complex undertaking, one that our understanding of has been constantly evolving. Global supply chains span multiple jurisdictions, involve numerous suppliers and evolve quickly over time. As our understanding evolves, so too must our approach. Over the past several years, Canada has built one of the world's first frameworks to address forced labour. The import prohibition established in 2020 started an important foundation, while the supply chains act increased expectations regarding transparency and reporting.
However, we have long recognized that there have been limitations to this approach. We know that we need to think bigger and do more. This is why we tabled new legislation in the spring and consulted over the summer on potential supply chain due diligence measures. Canadian businesses want more clarity, consistency and confidence, and this government is providing exactly that. Our new legislation will allow the government to publish a public list of goods, which will provide clear directions to CBSA and to businesses on where risk exists. Importers will be required to show detailed supply chain information to prove their products are free of forced labour before they can pass our borders.
This will strengthen our ability to identify, intercept and prohibit goods linked to forced labour at the border. These measures give businesses clearer expectations, encourage due diligence before goods reach our border and help ensure that companies following the rules are not undercut by those who do not.
Competitiveness and responsible business practices are not mutually exclusive goals. Canadians want our businesses to succeed. We want Canadian companies to grow, innovate, attract investment, and be competitive on the global stage. At the same time, Canadians expect our markets to operate according to clear, fair rules.
By improving transparency and predictability and by strengthening Canada's approach to forced labour, we are creating an environment where responsible businesses can thrive. We are building a system that Canadians can trust, a system that can also serve as a model for other countries.
Canada's economic interests are the interests of our workers, and workers must be central to this approach. As Canada diversifies its supply chains and expands trade relationships, we will continue to support businesses in meeting their obligations, while ensuring that those that violate laws are always held to account. Our trade must reflect our values. Our government will always work to ensure we can uphold labour rights, protect Canada's interests and make Canadian businesses more competitive and prepared in international markets. We will promote Canadian interests while upholding labour standards for all workers.