Alistair MacGregor

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 13th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with many points my hon. colleague made in her speech. It is why I voted against the Senate amendment to Bill C-7 in the previous Parliament. It is why I voted for the member for Abbotsford's bill, Bill C-314. It is why I agree with the recommendation that came out of the special joint committee.

There is more than enough blame to be assigned to the Liberals, but we are dealing with a March 17 deadline. This is a time the House collectively has to stand up and get this bill through because we also have the Senate to deal with.

Why, with that context upon us right now, did the Conservatives vote the way they did this morning when it is imperative that this bill get passed before March 17?

We do not yet know what is actually going to happen in the Senate. We can only really say for certain what is going to happen in the House, but this is a critically important bill to pass before March 17.

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 13th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, following up on the question from the member for Fredericton, I was a member of that special joint committee, and I agree with her that its work was quite important. I think that every member, both from the House and the Senate, approached the subject matter with the responsibility and gravitas it demanded. However, I will put an asterisk beside that because the committee, in its last iteration, was afforded only three meetings of three hours each with witnesses. Unfortunately, there were a lot of witnesses we could have heard from. We did not even have time to go over the briefs that were submitted because there were so many of them and there simply was not time to translate them into both official languages.

This is mainly a comment for the parliamentary secretary to respond to: I am glad to see that we actually have a legislative requirement built into Bill C-62 that the special joint committee would be reconvened. I hope it would be done with plenty of runway to give this particular subject the time it deserves, which I frankly would say most Canadians expect.

[Canada's Agriculture Day, February 13th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, there are some incredible challenges facing Canadian farmers: changing markets and price fluctuations in commodities; rising debt levels; and climate change-driven extreme weather events. Despite these challenges, farmers in Canada continue to confront and to overcome adversity while showcasing the innovative ways they are leading us into the 21st century with advances in food production.

Farmers are certainly not fans of the “Ottawa knows best” approach. Instead, as New Democrats, we want to partner with our farmers to help them build their resilience against climate change and confront the corporate greed that is driving up their input costs to unsustainable levels. To help our farmers, we need a government that is ready for action on a sustainable agriculture strategy, a critical input strategy and a mandatory grocery code of conduct.

Today is Canada's Agriculture Day. On behalf of the NDP caucus, I hope we can all take a moment to celebrate both the hard-working Canadian farmers who grow the food we love and the essential contributions of agriculture to our nation's prosperity and well-being.

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 12th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the you that I will be splitting my time.

Today, we are not debating Bill C-62; we are actually debating Motion No. 34, which is a programming motion to get the bill through the House of Commons. We are having to resort to a tactic that I do not often like to use, but time is forcing us to do this.

If the House of Commons, the Senate and Governor General do not act and we do not have this bill into royal assent by March 17, the law is going to change. Essentially, many experts have expressed an extreme amount of discomfort with that. There is a lot of professional discomfort. We have seen also from our provinces and territories that they are very uncomfortable with the pace of change that is going on.

What Bill C-62 would do is delay the implementation of MAID for persons who are suffering from a mental disorder as a sole underlying condition. The bill would further kick that can down the road until 2027. It also has a legislative requirement that the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying be reconvened in advance of that date. Hopefully, that committee would have the time necessary.

As parliamentarians, we have to step up to the moment. I am particularly saying this for my hon. colleagues in the House of Commons. There is plenty of blame to be assigned to the Liberals, and, trust me, I have given my fair share. We are in this situation because of an ill-advised 11th hour amendment to Bill C-7 in the previous Parliament, a bill that the government's original charter statement had presented as a reasonable argument against the expansion of MAID to people who had mental disorders. Then that bill went to the Senate and it inexplicably accepted a consequential amendment that brought us to where we are today.

Last year, we had to quickly pass Bill C-39, because, again, we were not ready for the deadline then. That kicked the can further down the road by one year. Now we find ourselves in the exact same position. I am suffering déjà vu, like a lot of my hon. colleagues are, where we now have to force this legislation to kick the can down the road another three years. I feel like I am caught between two forces right now: the ineptitude of the governing Liberals for putting us in this position and a Conservative Party that seems to just want to cause chaos in this final week.

This is a moment when the adults in the room need to step up to the plate. There is plenty of blame to be assigned, but we cannot work around the deadline and the fact that we have only two sitting weeks left to us. We are still at the second reading stage of this bill, and that is why this programming motion is necessary. That is why we need to step up to the plate and ensure that Bill C-62 is through the House of Commons by the end of this week. It still has to run the gauntlet in the Senate, and who knows what is going to happen in the red chamber. That is something for the government members to figure out.

One thing that is really good about this motion is that there is a requirement that the Standing Committee on Health be convened on Wednesday. That will allow members of that committee to question either the Minister of Health or the Minister of Justice and also have two hours to speak to witnesses. Honestly, we need to come together as a Parliament and ensure that we get this through.

It is further bolstered by the fact that seven out of 10 provinces and all three territories sent a letter to the federal government asking for an indefinite delay. These are signatures of ministers of health and ministers responsible for mental health and addiction, which are essentially the departments that are responsible for oversight of the whole medical assistance in dying regime. We have to listen to those incredibly important voices. We have to listen to their expertise. We have to honour what they are requesting in this letter.

I ask my hon. colleagues to step up to the plate and be the adults in the room. Let us get Bill C-62 passed through the House of Commons this week.

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 12th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware of all our work on the special joint committee. We sat together on that committee from the beginning.

In our recommendation of our most recent report, we put in that recommendation “qualitative benchmarks”, not any kind of a reference to a time frame but more based on whether we had appropriate recommendations from departments and on consultation with provincial and territorial governments, and also the indigenous peoples of Canada.

Similarly, in the letter that was received by the federal government from seven out of 10 provinces and all three territories, there were more qualitative benchmarks, in that the ministers were asking for an indefinite pause based on further collaboration and consultation.

I know Bloc members have asked for a one-year delay, but how do they reconcile that with the fact that so many are calling for these qualitative benchmarks to be established rather than an arbitrary timeline?

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 12th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, there was a letter that was signed by seven out of 10 provinces and all three territories asking the federal government for a delay. The case is bolstered by those health ministers and ministers responsible for mental health and addictions.

We have a very tight timeline. We have two sitting weeks left until the law changes. There is plenty of blame to be assigned but this week we have to step up to the plate as parliamentarians.

My question to my hon. colleague is this. Are the Conservatives going to support this programming motion on government business No. 34, to get this bill to the Senate so that we have the time? Otherwise, the law is going to change. That is the fact we are dealing with.

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 12th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the member for Cumberland—Colchester had a couple of factual errors in his speech. The NDP voted against Bill C-7's amendment that brought this in. We supported the member for Abbotsford's bill, Bill C-314, and we support the majority report. We have never been for the expansion; let us put that on the record.

We are at a moment in time this week, with an impending deadline, when we can throw blame at the Liberals, and they are well deserving of it, or we can rise to the occasion and be the adults in the room, given that there are only two sitting weeks left before March 17. Which are the Conservatives going to choose? Are they going to be on the side of getting the bill through the House to the Senate in the correct amount of time?

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 12th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, this is obviously a week when the House of Commons as a whole has to step up to the plate because we really only have two sitting weeks left on the parliamentary schedule until the March 17 deadline.

That being said, I think it is worth it for us to remember why we are here. We have to go back to Bill C-7 and the Liberal government's 11th hour, inexplicable decision to accept a very consequential Senate amendment to it, which got us into this mess in the first place. The Senate changed the law without having done the proper research and consultations. Ever since, it feels like we have been playing a game of catch-up. That is why Bill C-39 was necessary last year, and why we have found ourselves in the same situation with Bill C-62.

Is the parliamentary secretary prepared to accept some responsibility on behalf of his government and issue an apology for setting that arbitrary deadline and getting us into the mess we now find ourselves in?

[Criminal Code, February 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I would love to see the committee be given the time and space to adequately explore this issue. I think that was what was lacking from the get-go.

I am not saying a firm “no”; I just have a problem with the arbitrary deadlines. Ultimately I want my decision to be informed by a fulsome discussion that involves a much wider array of experts and representatives of the provincial and territorial governments. That is what was lacking. We have been playing a game of catch-up ever since, and we are seeing the consequences of that through the deliberations on the bill.

[Criminal Code, February 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, honestly, I do not know.

I was here for Bill C-7. I thought the government's original position with respect to that bill was quite clear. For some reason, the Liberals did a complete 180 when it came to the Senate's amending the bill. To this day, I do not think I—