SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 280 - Feb/12/24

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Feb/12/24 11:49:20 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-317

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak in this session of Parliament. I want to begin by saying hello to the people of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and to my team, Line, Mélanie, Marie‑Josée, Jenny, Lamine, Eric and Loukas, who are holding down the fort in my riding. Let us now talk about Bill C-317, an act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting, which seeks to provide key stakeholders with the information they need to forecast floods and droughts. This bill affects me directly, since much of my riding had to deal with forest fires in 2023. Year after year, more and more regions of Quebec and Canada are facing flooding and forest-fire-causing droughts because of climate change. Climate change is escalating around the world and causing climate events that are increasingly frequent, more intense and more variable in nature. Quebec has experienced a lot of flooding in recent decades. The socio-economic costs associated with those floods have only continued to grow. The same is true of forest fires. The Société de protection des forêts contre le feu describes the 2023 wildfires as the most devastating ever. The drought in May 2023 was the spark that ignited it all. Some 4.5 million hectares of forest burned in Quebec, including 1.1 million hectares in populated areas. In summer 2023, there were 30 times more wildfires than the annual average, including 48 that burned more than 1,000 hectares, or 30 times more than the annual average in Quebec, which is 1.6 fires per season. Some 2,360 forest firefighters from the rest of Canada and around the world came to help their colleagues in Quebec. The community of Lebel-sur-Quévillon, in Abitibi-James Bay-Nunavik-Eeyou, was the hardest hit by the wildfires in summer 2023. It had the biggest fire, made up of 19 fires that converged and burned 480,000 hectares of forest. Five years of forest harvests went up in smoke. I was there on the first day of the forest fires in Chapais and when Lebel-sur-Quévillon was evacuated, to announce the evacuation. For those who do not believe that these fires are a result of climate change, I can enlighten them. I can tell them about the damage they caused in my riding in terms of the economic and social losses, of our people's insecurity and their fear of losing their homes and personal property, of their fear of going through more fires, of the lack of compensation to the cities and towns that were devastated. People are still stressed, and they are still awaiting financial assistance. I worked with the mayors to help meet the complex needs of cities and towns in this difficult situation. I reported on the situation every day between May and August of last year. Floods and droughts are natural phenomena that are amplified by climate change. Adjusting to the impacts of climate change means that public authorities need to rely on science to guide government decision-making. This means making relevant information about meteorological events, including droughts and floods, available to the public and all responders. The Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle of Bill C-317, but someone will have to show how a bill seeking to create a national strategy to prevent floods and droughts will improve current public action, since public authorities are already doing much of the work. In fact, we would like to take this opportunity to remind our colleagues that Canada is not a national state made up of a single people. There is no one single Canadian nation. Canada is a multinational society, which includes the Canadian majority, the Quebec nation and indigenous nations. The use of terms such as “national policy” or “national strategy” is therefore a bit misleading. Everyone knows that a country can hold up diversity as a cardinal value while showing very little consideration for the diversity of nations that make up its population. That being said, our main concern about Bill C-317 is its relevance. We are not certain whether the bill’s provisions will have a beneficial effect on public action and, especially, on the ability of public authorities to plan and adapt to the impacts of climate change. The preamble of Bill C-317 explains that the reason for this new legislation is the fact that “current flood and drought forecasting in Canada is conducted by the provinces without coordination between them and with limited federal technical support”. It is therefore important to consider public actions already taken by the provinces in order to forecast and prevent floods and droughts and to evaluate to what degree federal support is or is not needed. Quebec’s plan to protect its territory from floods contains sustainable solutions to protect our living environments. As we can see on the government of Quebec’s website, the plan is based on four areas for action. Given the seriousness of the situation, the Quebec government has taken action. The ministerial action group on flood-related land-use planning was given a mandate to develop a land-use government plan to ensure the safety of the public and the protection of property in flood zones in Quebec. The action group collaborated with municipalities and the scientific community to find sustainable and creative solutions for protecting our living environments from flooding. Two advisory committees were also set up; one was composed of representatives from the municipalities and associations involved and the other was made up of experts from the various fields associated with land use and flood zone management. After several months of research and consultation, both committees tabled their report. The numerous recommendations they made were taken into consideration by the ministerial action group. As my colleague mentioned earlier, Quebeckers can also use the Vigilance app to better prepare for flooding by keeping up-to-date on rising water levels in Quebec. Government and municipal stakeholders can also use it to alert and mobilize responders in the event of an emergency. Generally speaking, we can reasonably say that the Quebec government has the expertise needed to protect the land and the people against flooding. In addition, Quebec put a great deal of thought into the Quebec water strategy, which takes into account all past experience. Quebec's strategy works quite well without intervention by the federal government, whose involvement is not needed to protect the environment and manage natural resources. So it must be made clear that Quebec already has comprehensive flood prevention and water strategies, and that the strategies do not require federal government intervention. Therefore, in subclause 3(3), which defines the content of the future federal strategy, paragraph (d) will have to be amended to remove an unnecessary reference to a Canadian water agency. The very existence of this agency is just as unnecessary as the reference to it in the bill. It is not needed because of the division of powers provided for in the Constitution of Canada. In closing, the last thing I want is to relive what happened with the 2023 forest fires in Abitibi—Baie‑James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

1238 words

The Speaker

Feb/12/24 11:57:33 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis has five minutes for his right of reply.

15 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Feb/12/24 11:57:39 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to close this debate on my bill at second reading. First of all, I would like to say how impressed I was by the quality of the speeches from both sides, by members from all parties present in the House this morning. I would also like to circle back to the comments made by my colleague, the member for Repentigny at the end of the first hour of debate, as well as the final comments made by the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. What we are aiming for here is not a federal strategy at all. In fact, responsibility for forecasting and adapting to disasters, such as floods and droughts, lies with the provinces. We are not aiming for a federal strategy, but a national strategy, meaning that we want to use this structural bill to encourage better collaboration between the provinces, the federal government, indigenous communities and, as my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa also mentioned, the people on the ground, the farmers. This is already happening. Specialists meet informally. However, according to Canada's foremost expert on flood and drought forecasting, John Pomeroy, something more formal is needed. It is important to recognize that technology has evolved. I can confirm that Quebec is one of the most advanced provinces in flood and drought forecasting. Quebeckers are very technologically advanced, but that does not mean we should not encourage collaboration because, in this day and age, with advances in technology and forecasting methods, forecasters are no longer limited to a small territory. Models can now be developed that cover huge, broad territories, even entire continents. That is what is being done in Europe right now. This will require collaboration. The federal government is not interfering. That is not at all what is happening here. I will give an example of the possibilities that we have with the proper degree of co-operation and the possibilities that we have of doing accurate flood forecasting. I would like to refer to something by Dr. Pomeroy. I am paraphrasing him and, in some cases, I am quoting him directly. I notice the member for Yukon is here. In the summer of 2021, Yukon experienced historical flooding along the Yukon River in Whitehorse, a pilot case flood forecast for the territorial government. It is a flood forecast coordinated by Global Water Futures, which is out of the University of Saskatchewan. It was able to correctly predict the flood and show its cause, which was unprecedented glacier and snow melt in the high mountain headwaters of the Yukon River in British Columbia. The problem is that Global Water Future's funding will be sunset, so we will not have the funding necessary for this kind of endeavour, but we need more of these kinds of endeavours. As Dr. Pomeroy has said, this exercise could not have been done by any level of government alone. There had to be co-operation between the federal government, the Yukon government and a university, where the expertise really resides in this area. It is not a question of public servants dictating anything to anybody. The public servants will not be doing this work; it is the experts in the universities and provinces. I appreciate the quality of the speeches I heard this morning and I appreciate what seems to be all-party support for this bill.

575 words

The Speaker

Feb/12/24 12:02:16 p.m.
Watch

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.

51 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Feb/12/24 12:02:55 p.m.
Watch

I would like a recorded vote please, Mr. Speaker.

9 words

The Speaker

Feb/12/24 12:03:00 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 14, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

25 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/12/24 12:04:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-62 Bill C-14

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to a very important issue. This is a deeply personal and complex issue, one that has had a great deal of debate in the House for number of years now. We are not directly speaking to that. Rather, we are speaking to the motion that would enable the government to get the MAID issue resolved for the next few years. The motion would ensure that the legislation actually passes. I will give a little background on that. There is a time limit for us to ultimately get Bill C-62 passed in order to fulfill our commitment to the court. Obviously, we want to keep the law validated, appropriately. The motion we have brought forward today would allow for the House, while providing some time for the Senate, to pass and give royal assent to the bill before the House breaks in March for a couple of weeks. In essence, it allows for a little more debate this week, when it will ultimately pass. It would then afford the Senate, in the week following the break, the ability to deal with the legislation and hopefully pass it without amendment. This is very important, as that would then enable the legislation to receive royal assent before the deadline. I know some members may be a little uncomfortable with respect to this programming motion before us today, the limitations that it puts on members and the importance of the subject matter itself. As some members may recall, last week I stood in my place and asked for unanimous consent to sit late in the evening. That way, members would have had more opportunity to have debate on this issue. Unfortunately, we did not get unanimous consent. As a direct result, we have to work within the time frame of when the House allows us to sit. As a result, in order to meet the deadline, we have brought in a programming motion. I made reference to the very beginning, about when we started to talk about the issue of medical assistance in dying. It came up in 2015. A Supreme Court of Canada decision, Carter v. Canada, made it very clear that we, as a government, and Canadians, through the Charter of Rights, needed MAID legislation. That was decided midway through 2015, but no action was taken, knowing full well that we had to bring in a law to address what the Supreme Court had put in place. We all know that an election took place. Shortly after that election, it was made very clear that as a government we needed to bring in the legislation. An approach was made to the Supreme Court to take into consideration what had taken place over the last number of months following its decision, including an election. The Supreme Court ultimately provided grace to the House of Commons so that we could, in fact, get the necessary legislation brought forward to the chamber and ultimately passed. We did have to ask for yet another extension back then. I do not think that surprised anyone. From the day we can recall, in 2015, there was a great deal of discussion that had taken place. In fact, I suspect, if one were to take a look at the different pieces of legislation, today, we call it Bill C-62, and the original legislation was Bill C-14. We have had legislation in between those bills, which the government had to bring into the House. On occasion, when the government brings in legislation for debate, there is fairly extensive debate not only in the chamber but also in committees. I can remember, quite vividly, a lot of the debate, the issue for which the special committee was put together to deal with the issue and to provide some thoughts, recommendations and ideas to the chamber and the members who were directly involved. There is no lack of interest or input from the many different stakeholders, of all different natures, in every region of the country. Everyone had an opinion on the issue. In the end, the amount of dialogue that went into the legislation and the creation of MAID, was probably greater than 90% of all other forms of legislation that come to the House. We saw that in the passion of the debates presented at the time by members of Parliament on all sides of the House. It was not just Liberals, New Democrats, Conservatives or the Bloc, or even the leader of the Green Party at the time, where one could see the emotional toll of the debate. That is why I talk about it being of a very deep, personal nature. There are complex choices and decisions that have to be made on this. When I reflect on that debate, there were tears inside the chamber. There were all sorts of emotions as members tried, in the best way they could, to explain why they were taking their positions on it. Different members voted for different reasons and so forth. In the end, Bill C-14 ultimately passed, after many hours of debate inside and outside. When I say outside, I go even further than outside of standing committees. There were emails, correspondence and discussions that I had on this issue, and it was fairly intense. People wanted to know how I felt about it. I am sure all members of Parliament were questioned about what they had to say on the legislation. I do have differing opinions from members across the way and maybe even, quite possibly, within my own caucus. I genuinely believe that the need for MAID is there. There is no question about that. However, where I fall on the side that it seems to be acceptable, at least for a good percentage of people I represent, is to have trust and confidence in our system of health care professionals, social workers and support people whom family members go to when the time comes to make difficult decisions, such as another family member, a local pastor or anyone else. Having that confidence has allowed me to feel comfortable as we have gone through this legislation, virtually from day one. There was a need for changes. To bring in substantive legislation for the first time that so profoundly impacts the lives of Canadians and to expect that the legislation would be perfect and would not require change is somewhat naive. That is in fact what took place. There was a need to make some changes to the legislation. That is why, ultimately, we had the second go-round of the legislation. There was a fairly wide discussion on that second attempt and, through amendments, something that is now very challenging was brought in, which deals with mental health as a sole condition for MAID. I know that has stirred the emotions of a lot of members and, ultimately, when the legislation passed to allow it, there was a lot more resistance to it than there was to Bill C-14. It did not surprise me, because of the delicacy of the issue. Again, I fell back to what I believe a vast majority of my constituents are comfortable with, which are the health care professionals and others, because I am not a medical doctor. I do not understand the issue to the same depth as do the different professionals. As a direct result, I feel more comfortable taking the same position as the government took on the issue. However, we also need to recognize the reality that other jurisdictions are very concerned about the implementation and about the degree to which we are ready to implement the legislation that was passed. That is really the crux of it. Therefore, we have Bill C-62 today, which would allow for that ongoing exemption to continue. That would enable the system, which is large and complex, to ensure that everything is ready. Then, if the legislation takes effect, people would not be let down, and we would still be able to meet the constitutional requirements. Let us remember that the amendment to the original legislation, in part, came from an appeal court in the province of Quebec, which obligated members of the House to bring forward other legislation. I know my friend opposite, from the Conservative Party, says that we had a choice and that we could have appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. As a number of them said, we could have attempted to kick the can down the road. Ultimately, it was a decision made and supported by a majority of members of Parliament in the House. Even though the Liberal government had a majority, when it came to Bill C-14, members know full well there were members from all sides who supported it. Today we have a minority situation, and the only way we can pass legislation through to have the support of other political entities inside the chamber. I would like to think that what we learned through this process has enabled us to look at other things we have been able to do directly. During many hours of the debates, people talked about palliative care, hospice care and about the lack of that type of care being provided to the people of Canada. It has been a genuine concern for many years, probably a good 20-plus years, where we needed to see more invested in hospice and in palliative care. Far too often we see individuals who are panelled in our hospitals because there is no place for them to go outside of the hospital. If we look at what took place during the pandemic, we saw that care facilities had to close the doors to people from outside to protect those on the inside. Those on the inside were often dying prematurely, and we know that as fact. Organizations like the Canadian Forces or the Red Cross were involved. If we take a look at the bigger holistic picture, are we collectively, and contrary to what some might say, it is not just Ottawa, doing enough to be able to deal with these social issues that Canadians have a high standard for? They want politicians of all political stripes and of all levels of government to invest more resources. I am talking about not only money, but also time and debate. There are probably better ways in which we could spend some of the money that is spent in areas such as health care, social services and so forth. One could take a look at the process for someone who might, first, end up in a hospital situation, and while in the hospital, they find out that things are not good and that their life is going to come to an end in a relatively short time. One of the things that happen is that hospitals can provide only so much in terms of treatment. There is no consistency within a province, let alone the nation, as to which individuals are being kept in the hospital. Because there are not enough supports in a home atmosphere and there is no other place for an individual to go, far too often they become panelled in a hospital facility in one form or another. I believe the debates we have seen on MAID amplify that. These are the types of discussions and debates that we should be having, not only here in Ottawa but also in our communities and at the different legislatures. Quite frankly, there are some fairly significant stakeholders out there who also have to play a role, like non-profit organizations. That is what I recall about some of the discussions we have been having over the years in regard to MAID legislation. Unfortunately, as I pointed out, the original thoughts in regard to MAID and the need for us to bring in legislation and the types of debates that we saw then are in contrast to today, as it is becoming more of a politicized issue. Politics seems to be more important than the issue itself in some ways. That is why at the very beginning I referred to the fact that it is not a good thing that we had to bring in a programming motion, but it is important that we do it today, because we were not successful at getting the consensus required to be able to sit longer to allow for a consensus to emerge as to how the legislation could pass through the system. However, we still have an opportunity. The motion talks about going to the Standing Committee on Health as the subject matter. When this motion passes, it will enable the Standing Committee on Health, as its first priority in terms of the resources of the House, to meet. A minister will in fact be there for a good hour. There will be an opportunity to have a few other witnesses. It will ultimately have to go through the committee. If we can get this motion passed, after this legislation goes through committee it will come back here to the House of Commons for third reading later this week, before being dealt with in the Senate in the last week of February to March 1. That time frame will enable it to ultimately get the necessary royal assent in order for it to be enacted into law. Based on what the legislation would actually do, I would think that the Conservatives, in particular, would support it. The essence of the legislation is to put in a three-year extension. It provides for particular provinces and jurisdictions to be able to get things in a better state of readiness, so that, at the end of that period of time, we are able to provide the types of services that are necessary. This means, in good part, that there will be ample time for us to continue to have that dialogue and debate, and if there is a need to do and bring forward other things, whether it is through private members' business or government business, that there are opportunities. However, I suspect, by passing Bill C-62, that a sound majority of the House will be content with the modernization, if I can put it that way, of the legislation. In one part, it reminds me of the issue of the suicide crisis helpline, and I say that for two reasons. One reason is that some members often will make reference to how the legislation as a whole is enabling individuals to virtually have suicide upon request, which is just not the case. We know that is not the case, and the members who say it know that is not the case but unfortunately we still see some members give that false impression. I find that to be somewhat unfortunate, because it is definitely misleading and does a disservice in terms of the legislation and the thorough process that we have gone through. I cannot imagine the number of hours, and we are talking three digits and more of hours of different types of discussions in many different forums. To try to simplify it by calling it “suicide on demand” does a great disservice to the legislation and to the law that we currently have in place. The reason I bring up the suicide helpline is that someone indicated to me that there are people who, at times in their lives, give it thought. When they heard about the MAID legislation, they made inquiries, and because of those inquiries they were able to get the type of assistance that made things better for them. In other words, MAID legislation, on occasion, I would ultimately argue, has actually even saved lives. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, a doctor in the House laughs at that. I do not believe it is a laughing matter. I think the member should reflect in terms of all the debates and discussions—

2679 words

Hon. François-Philippe Champagne

Feb/12/24 12:04:27 p.m.
Watch

moved: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House: (a) the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to consider the subject matter of Bill C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2, upon the adoption of this order, provided that, as part of this study, (i) a minister be ordered to appear before the committee for one hour and that additional witnesses be ordered to appear for two consecutive hours, no later than Wednesday, February 14, 2024, (ii) the committee have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings; and (b) Bill C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2, be disposed as follows: (i) the bill be ordered for consideration at the second reading stage immediately after the adoption of this order, provided that, (A) when the House begins debate at the second reading stage of the bill, one member of each recognized party and a member of the Green Party may each speak at the said stage for not more than 10 minutes, followed by five minutes for questions and comments, (B) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate at the second reading stage or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall be deferred to the next sitting day at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions, after which the House shall adjourn until the next sitting day, (C) during consideration of the bill, the House shall not adjourn, except pursuant to a motion moved by a minister of the Crown, (D) no motion to adjourn the debate may be moved except by a minister of the Crown, (ii) if the bill is adopted at the second reading stage, it shall be deemed referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and the bill shall be ordered for consideration at the third reading stage on Thursday, February 15, 2024, provided that, (A) 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders that day, or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall not be deferred, (B) during consideration of the bill, the House shall not adjourn, except pursuant to a motion moved by a minister of the Crown, (C) no motion to adjourn the debate may be moved except by a minister of the Crown.

502 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/12/24 12:33:48 p.m.
Watch

Order. I would ask members who wish to engage to please wait for the period for questions and comments to do that. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

26 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/12/24 12:33:59 p.m.
Watch

I hope the doctor asks me a question about the 13,000 people who were killed. The manner in which he made that particular heckle is very disrespectful. I wonder if that is the general attitude that the member actually takes to try to get on the record. It was not that long ago when he was in the House that he said that the Ukraine trade agreement was “woke” legislation. He was the one who first sent up that red flag. Now, in his insensitive way, he talks about the 13,000 killed with a smile. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! I can tell the member that the individuals who were involved in those difficult decisions did not think it was a laughing matter. They did not—

131 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/12/24 12:34:52 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind members who want to participate in the debate that they should wait until it is time for questions and comments. I am referring to the laughing, heckling and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

40 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/12/24 12:35:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-62

Madam Speaker, it is disappointing to hear someone who practises medicine talk about it in a manner that is disrespectful to the thousands of people who have very difficult decisions to make. An hon. member: It is unbelievable. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: It is unbelievable. Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, these are not easy decisions, and the member opposite feels these 13,000 were just killed. The government puts in a great deal of effort to get things in a state of readiness, so that we are able to provide the types of services Canadians want and need. I make reference to the 988 suicide crisis line. Some might try to give the impression that because this is just a three-digit number, all we have to do now is say that we are going to have it and click our heels, and then it appears. The idea came up a number of years ago from, I believe, a member of the Conservative Party, who was being very genuine. That does not take away from the fact that other members, associations and stakeholders were also talking about it. As a government, the minister responsible ultimately did the sharing and the networking that were necessary in order to be able to present to the House of Commons a program that ultimately received the funding that was necessary, and worked with the different provinces, territories and stakeholders to turn it into a reality. Today, the 988 number is live. People having suicidal thoughts can feel comfortable knowing there will be someone at the other end of the line when they call 988 who can help them in different languages and understand and appreciate different cultures. I would suggest this is an example of how things come to the government, actions are ultimately taken and then something is put in place. The same principles have applied here. The Supreme Court makes a decision based on the Charter of Rights; the government brings in legislation, which is thoroughly debated and on which amazing consultation and input take place, with hundreds of hours of dialogue; and the legislation is passed by a majority. It is passed by members of all political parties and then ultimately put into place. It is a policy that is then administered and, as I pointed out earlier, there is at times the need for changes. We saw that need. One of them was amplified through the Quebec court. We make the change. We listen to what the Senate said. The issue of mental health is something that was brought to our attention. This legislation, Bill C-62, like the previous one that delayed the implementation, is going to continue that delay. To that end, I believe we will in fact have sound, solid legislation, and hopefully it will not have to be revisited. Time will tell us on that. With those few words, I hope members can appreciate why the need for the programming of the legislation is being put into place and why the legislation is so critically important. Indeed, I would suggest that delaying it for three years is a reflection of what a vast majority of Canadians want and what the different stakeholders are requesting.

540 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Feb/12/24 12:40:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-7

Madam Speaker, the decision to expand MAID in the case of mental illness was not a decision of the courts. It was a political decision made by the Liberals. That is evidenced by the fact that the government's initial legislative response, Bill C-7, expressly excluded MAID for mental illness in response to the Truchon decision, which was not an appellate decision, as the member said, but a lower court decision that, yes, the government should have appealed. We have heard from experts the fundamental clinical issues, including the difficulty, if not impossibility, of predicting irremediability as part of the reason why there was a one-year delay. It is part of the reason why now the government is kicking the can down the road with a further three-year delay. What evidence can the member cite that the issue is going to be resolved in three short years?

150 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/12/24 12:41:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that the request for the extension is something that is coming from different jurisdictions. There are medical professions and provinces, for example, that have made the very clear indication that they are just not quite ready yet. They believe there should be more of an extension and a bit more time because there is training that needs to be involved and possible accreditation. I do not know all the complexities of it, but I do know that there is a genuine request for additional time, so the people who need to have the level of expertise would be properly in place so the best interests of Canadians are put first.

119 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Feb/12/24 12:42:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, when it comes to MAID, this government is not exactly a shining example of proactivity. After the Carter decision, it took a long time for the government to table a half-decent bill. Bill C‑14 was pretty worthless. It was a poor imitation of the Quebec legislation and was far from addressing the crux of the Carter decision. That being said, the issue of proactivity is still relevant. Regarding MAID for people with mental health conditions, a three-year delay was unnecessary; one year would have been enough. The government has been aware of that for a year, since it is basing its decision to kick it down the road on the consensus recommendations of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. Why has the government not done anything on advance requests for the past year? Why is it dragging its feet? Why is it not basing its decision to go ahead with this on the joint committee's key recommendation?

167 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/12/24 12:43:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would disagree with the member with respect to the government dragging its feet. We can go all the way back to the Carter decision of the Supreme Court to find that it was Stephen Harper who chose to do nothing after the decision. Shortly after forming government in late 2015, we initiated legislative draftings so the legislature would be able to deal with the legislation in 2016, where there were thorough discussions and debates, at the different levels of readings, plus standing committees. I have spent a good portion of my comments today amplifying that. On the one hand, some members of the Conservative Party want us to get rid of the mental health component. The Bloc, on the other hand, are saying that we are not moving fast enough. I think the approach that we have taken as a government is on target.

147 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Feb/12/24 12:44:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-7 Bill C-62 Bill C-39

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?

179 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/12/24 12:45:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-7

Madam Speaker, in the question previous to that of the member, the government was accused of being too slow. Now my New Democratic friend is saying that we were too quick when it came to Bill C-7. In saying that we did not do enough background work, he implied that we were too quick. The Government of Canada, when we look at the broader picture of the Supreme Court decision back in 2015, brought forward very difficult legislation. As has been demonstrated, it was not perfect legislation. Given the very nature of it, one would be naive to think there was never going to be a need to make changes. That is why standing committees were mandated to meet on the legislation. It was because it was the first time we had substantive legislation of this nature.

138 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Feb/12/24 12:46:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-39

Madam Speaker, it is almost one year to the day that the governing party proposed Bill C-39. I am glad we are once again talking about rushing through legislation to avoid extending medical assistance in dying for mental health. The parliamentary secretary asked a really important question. He asked in his speech if we are doing enough on these social issues. The answer is very clearly no because the government is not rushing through crucial legislation to address the housing crisis. It is not rushing through legislation to address legislated poverty for people with disabilities, and it is pretending its commitment to a $4.5-billion Canada mental health transfer never happened. Why is this the case?

118 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/12/24 12:47:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would challenge the member to show me a government in the last 50 or 60 years that has been more progressive on social development than the Prime Minister and this government, whether we are talking about taking seniors and children out of poverty by the hundreds of thousands, or dealing with a wide spectrum of social issues through the child care program and the many senior supports we have put in place, not to mention the substantial enhancements to OAS and increases to the GIS, especially back in 2016 when we first became government. There is a long list. I could talk about the dental care program or the tax break for Canada's middle class. There is a whole list I could go through, but I do not have enough time.

135 words