Francis Scarpaleggia

[Business of Supply, February 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that unanimous consent was not given to table these very important documents, which are very revealing of how the previous government managed things. I am also shocked by the obvious cozy relationship that existed between the previous Conservative government and this firm, and the very lax contracting policies that left us documents with words such as “work unspecified”.

Does the member not feel that perhaps this cozy relationship and these lax practices might have emboldened GC Strategies going forward?

[Regional Economic Development, February 16th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, we are proud of our Quebec businesses, which create jobs and support economic growth.

The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord underscored the importance of funding Quebec businesses in parliamentary committee, and yet the Conservatives voted against our funding measures.

Can the minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec tell us how our government's programs are strengthening supply chain development and resilience?

[Criminal Code, February 15th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very difficult question.

We all believe in personal autonomy and choice. However, as I said in my speech two days ago, sometimes I think that is becoming a bit of an ideology, where we do not recognize that, yes, we are individuals with free will and free choice, but we are born into families and communities. We are influenced not only by the opportunities that families and communities afford us, but also by the constraints they impose upon us. In some cases, society imposes more hardship on some than others.

We do not seem to be able to separate out whether somebody is asking for medical assistance in dying because of the hardships that society has imposed on them, or whether it is really a clear-eyed decision. I am not a psychiatrist. I am not a doctor. I do not approach this with—

[Criminal Code, February 15th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about it. I do not know what it means and there is much disagreement as to what it means.

I would ask a question of the member, which I know he will not have to answer under the rules. Is he okay with track one MAID? A lot of the psychiatrists who went before the committee who were not in favour of MAID for mental disorders were in favour of track one and track two. I would like to know if the member accepts MAID under any circumstance or not at all.

It is an important ethical and moral decision, I agree, but no one in the House wants people to suffer needlessly, and I think we are all grappling with this on moral and technical grounds. It may not be possible, I cannot say, but we want to separate out suicidal ideation. We want to be able to separate out psychosocial factors as motivating factors for requesting MAID in cases of mental illness, and we are not there yet.

We want to study treatment fatigue to see, if somebody says they are done and cannot take it anymore, whether we can guide them to another treatment. We have looked at treatment fatigue when it comes to HIV and type 1 diabetes patients, but we have not looked at treatment fatigue when we talk about psychiatric illnesses.

[Criminal Code, February 15th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I should have used the correct term, “advance requests”, instead of “advance directives”.

It seems to me that, during question period, the leader of the Bloc Québécois was just asking for an amendment to allow advance requests all of a sudden. Regardless of the government's timeline, I do not think the House is really ready to vote on this. Some members of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying may be.

However, as I told him earlier, this is not something as straightforward as the Standing Committee on Finance studying a budget. In that case, the members of a given party recommend that all their fellow party members vote in favour of it because they have studied it and the party trusts them. Everyone wants to make the right decision, so this requires a much more thorough debate.

As the member himself said, Quebec did not put medical assistance in dying due to mental disorders in its legislation. The member said it was because Quebec had not studied it at the time. If Quebec is so sure, it can amend its legislation to include it.

[Criminal Code, February 15th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising for the second time this week to speak to this issue. As I said at the beginning of my speech at second reading, I was so interested in this issue that I offered to sit on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying when it dealt with the question of mental illness. I felt it was my duty to take part in a debate that is so important for our society. This is a crucial and extremely complex social debate. As a legislator, I wanted to learn more about this hot-button public policy issue that is so important to my constituents. Many of them have written to me about this.

I attended much of the debate on the issue this week, and I was very impressed by the tone. It is true that emotions can sometimes get the better of us, but that is to be expected when we are debating such a crucial matter, a matter of life and death. I must say that I was impressed that the debate was conducted in a respectful manner. That is impressive, and we should adopt that same tone when we discuss the many other issues addressed here in the House.

I heard arguments that I do not want to call fallacious, because that is a pejorative term and I do not want to criticize anyone, but let us just say that I heard a few contradictions during certain speeches.

First, someone claimed that we could have simply amended Bill C-62 to include advance requests. I do not think we are ready to make a hasty amendment to open the door to something as complex—if not more—as medical assistance in dying, namely, medical assistance in dying for persons with a mental illness. It took much effort, much debate, much discussion and several committee meetings for us to be able to talk about medical assistance in dying for patients with a mental illness.

Moreover, the idea that we can move an amendment in committee is wrong, because such an amendment would certainly be ruled out of order, since the scope of the bill is not that broad. The bill deals with a specific question, namely, medical assistance in dying for persons with a mental illness.

People claim we are taking too much time to debate this issue, that it has already been three years and that we should end the debate. We are not talking about policies like affordability or the need to build housing as quickly as possible. We are talking about something very serious. We really are going beyond the more practical issues, and I think it will take the time it takes because there is no consensus among the experts. If there is no consensus, we cannot force the issue, suddenly demand consensus and insist we move forward because time is running out. The issue of how long it will take to reach a good conclusion is unfortunately not a problem for me.

As I was saying, this is not simply a technical medical issue, it is a moral and ethical issue for society, certainly.

The matter of caution was also raised. Some claim that the government is too cautious, too timid, on this issue, that it is not acting as quickly as people would like, that it has not addressed the issue fast enough or lacks political will. It does in fact lack political will because there are too many uncertainties. In this case, it is not a bad thing to lack political will in order to forge ahead as soon as possible.

However, on this idea of being too cautious, I would say that this is true even for the Bloc Québécois, because it has accepted the framework we have established. For the moment, we are not implementing this framework. Nevertheless, under the framework, not everyone who requests medical assistance in dying on the grounds of a mental illness will receive it. We are talking about a mere 5% acceptance rate. Even if we went ahead, we would do so with a lot of caution, given the 95% of people who would request medical assistance in dying on those grounds.

We should then not talk as if caution were not an issue. Caution is an issue, even if we agree to move forward. I would like to ask my colleagues who keep disparaging the government for its caution whether it would be too cautious to require that, in these cases, a psychiatrist be involved in assessing the person's request. Right now, it is not necessary for a psychiatrist to be involved in the assessment. In the Netherlands, where medical assistance in dying is legal, a psychiatrist must give an opinion on the request. There is caution built into the process, but it is not unreasonable. I would say that my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois agree that some caution is required.

There is also talk about freedom. Some say that this is a matter of freedom, as if they were talking about absolute freedom. It is not a matter of absolute freedom, because 95% of those requesting medical assistance in dying would not have access to it on the grounds of a mental illness. We need to make things clear and add nuance to this debate to avoid giving the impression we are talking about absolute concepts.

Then they bring up the issue of the Quebec nation. I listened carefully to my friend, the hon. member from Joliette, with whom I enjoyed working on election reform. He is a seasoned parliamentarian who makes excellent speeches in the House. He said that there were many nations in Canada. Indeed, there is the Quebec nation, but there are also indigenous nations. There are indigenous nations within the Quebec nation as well. What I understand is that indigenous nations are not too keen to move this issue forward at this time. They say that they have not been consulted enough. They have concerns about the systemic racism that exists in health care systems across the country. Among other things, they are afraid that not enough thought will be put into processing the requests.

We should not focus too much on the idea of community when it comes to medical assistance in dying. When people get to that point, when they are on their death bed, I do not think they dwell too much on the community. Each person is a soul facing infinity alone. That is why we should not talk too much about nations when we are discussing medical assistance in dying. It is not a matter of being part of a community. I agree that it is a matter of individual rights. That is where it gets complicated, because we do not want people to suffer.

However, we do not want people to do things that have not been assessed with the utmost caution, because it is a matter of life and death.

I will stop here and await my colleagues' questions.

[Criminal Code, February 15th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, in issues like this, there is always this tension between the right of the individual and the impacts that individual has on the “culture”, for lack of a better word, and on others in the society when exercising that right. This was brought up by one of the psychiatrists who appeared before the committee when he said that one of the concerns he has with MDSUMC is a possible contagion effect. I do not know if courts would actually consider this because it is so difficult to prove. Anyway, it is just something I think about a lot, and I wonder whether the member has any thoughts on that.

[Criminal Code, February 15th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, as always, I appreciate the member's interventions, his insights and all that he brings to the table. I would agree with the member in that one of the sticking points for me in this process is the fact that the agenda, and this is undeniable, has been driven by the Senate.

There is a big difference between government legislation and Senate legislation, and we are talking about a Senate amendment. The government has all kinds of resources. It has access to all kinds of experts to consult. It has access to legal experts, it does charter analysis and everything else. However, the Senate side does not have those same resources.

Therefore, how could the Senate approach this with such a degree of certainty and, in some cases, one might say, a sense of infallibility when it does not really have the resources that the government has? The government, with all those resources, never intended to go ahead. I would like the member's comment on that.

[Criminal Code, February 15th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the member and I sat on the third edition of the special joint committee together. I know the member is a lawyer, and my question is really a legal one. I agree with the recommendation of the committee for an indefinite delay, but does he expect that this case will come up at the Supreme Court eventually? What does he think the reasoning of the court might be, given that the definition of irremediability in law is very different from irremediability in clinical medical practice, which requires a bit more certainty? There is a tension between the two, so I would be interested in his perspective on that.

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

Madam Speaker, in fact, I do not know how to answer that question. We have seen that there is a subjective element. There are some who believe they would make the right call. I guess that confidence is at the root of the perspective they bring to the issue.

I am not a medical doctor, much less a psychiatrist, so again, I do not have a definitive answer for the member.