Points of Order  Madam Speaker, I believe this is a proper point of order, especially as it deals with the usage of inappropriate and unparliamentary language. I believe that in one of the opening questions, the member for Carleton referred to the opposite of heaven in raising a question and trying to emphasize a point.

Justice  Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Bourassa for his dedication to the most vulnerable Canadians and to the fight against racism. We listened to Canadians, who asked us to make our justice system fairer and more effective. We announced a number of measures to fight racism. They will provide police officers with alternatives so that substance use can be treated as a health issue.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the member for Sydney—Victoria for his tireless advocacy in the fight against systemic racism. We are finally turning the page on failed Conservative criminal justice policies that have not made us safe and not deterred criminals. Instead, they have resulted in the over-incarceration of indigenous people, Black people and marginalized Canadians.

Religious Freedom  Mr. Speaker, on this day four years ago Canada lost six brave men: Mamadou Tanou Barry, Azzedine Soufiane, Abdelkrim Hassane, Ibrahima Barry, Aboubaker Thabti and Khaled Belkacemi. We remember these six men whose lives were cut short by an act of terror when a gunman stormed the mosque in Quebec City and opened fire.

Criminal Code  Madam Speaker, happy new year to you and to all my colleagues joining us virtually from around the country. It is a pleasure to see everyone and to reconnect in this format. I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-238, which was introduced by the member for Markham—Unionville in February of last year and would propose to amend the Criminal Code, as we have heard throughout the discussions this morning.

Criminal Code  Madam Speaker, I appreciate the contributions of the Leader of the Opposition. I would put out that safeguards have in fact been increased in the legislation, particularly in track two with respect to the 90-day requirement for an assessment and the expertise being required as part of that assessment panel.

Violence Against Women  Madam Speaker, December 6, 1989, is a day many Canadians recall vividly. I was in my final year of high school and I remember panicking with my parents until we heard from my sister, who was attending university in Montreal at the time. Some of my sister's female counterparts in another part of Montreal were not so lucky that day.

Government Programs  Mr. Speaker, I would emphasize that Bill C-7 strives to ensure we have a regime that protects vulnerable persons with adequate safeguards, and all the time respects individual autonomy and competence. With respect to supports for persons with disabilities, this is something that the minister and the entire governmental team has been working on diligently.

Indigenous Affairs  Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Surrey Centre for his advocacy. Over 25 years of negotiation took place between indigenous peoples and nation states to develop the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The foundation of this legislation, the former Bill C-262, was carefully examined by both this House and the Senate during the last mandate.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the member in a twofold manner. The first point is that I think it is erroneous and misconstruing the positions at stake that we somehow, on this side of the House, are cherry-picking perspectives on any aspect of this bill. The consultations that we heard were vast and extensive from 125 experts and 300,000 individual Canadians.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the aisle for his question and his work in this Parliament and the previous one. This question has been raised a number of times. A government's job is to analyze a well-articulated, well-researched, thorough decision. It is not necessary to appeal a decision all the way to the end.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, and I am pleased that the Bloc Québécois is supporting this bill. With regard to the judgment of professionals on the ground, whether it be doctors or nurses, we know that they treat people and assess their autonomy and their informed consent.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question and, again, I thank the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for his contributions at committee and throughout this Parliament. The consequences of not meeting the court-imposed deadline of December 18, in effect, would be that rather than a statute being the law of the land in Quebec, we would have the Truchon decision being the law of the land in Quebec, which means that there would be no safeguards whatsoever for those persons who are not at the end of life, whose death is not reasonably foreseeable, from accessing MAID.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the parliamentary secretary for his very good question. What we know is that in Truchon, the judge assessed the criteria in Carter and applied them to the situation of these two people who were living with disabilities but whose death was not reasonably foreseeable.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his contributions in committee, and I will answer his questions. The Conservative Party amendments that were proposed undercut the heart of what the bill is about, which is ensuring that there is a compassionate response to medical assistance in dying and that a person's autonomy is protected.