SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/13/24 6:30:28 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.

24 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/13/24 6:34:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-62

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the House leader of the official opposition. It concerns the admissibility of an amendment made to Government Business No. 34, namely the inclusion of a substantive amendment to Bill C-62, an act to amend an act to amend the Criminal Code, medical assistance in dying, no. 2. The member argued that the amendment was inadmissible insofar as it was attempting to introduce a new proposition to the motion. He stated that the motion deals with programming and timetabling of the House consideration of the bill, while the amendment to the motion seeks to amend the bill itself. He claimed that such a proposal should take the form of a separate motion, following the necessary notice requirement. Normally the House leader would be correct. Substantive motions to amend a bill would be moved at specific steps in the legislative process. It would thereby be possible to move a distinct motion of instruction to the committee or propose specific amendments during the clause-by-clause study or at report stage. However, government Motion No. 34 deals with passage of the bill at several of the stages simultaneously, including committee stage and report stage. The provisions of this motion, if adopted, would not offer members any other opportunity to amend the bill itself. The member for Montcalm, wanting to offer his amendment to the bill, proceeded in the only way available to him, which was by amending the text of the government motion to include the specific legislative text he wishes to include in the bill. Due to the constraining effects of the motion and not having any other option available to the member to amend the bill, the Chair allowed the proposal amending the motion on Government Business No. 34. On the argument that the amendment was beyond the scope of the motion because it veered away from straightforward programming or timetabling of the House’s consideration of the bill and into substantive alterations to the bill itself, the Chair’s view is that the scope does not need to be cast so narrowly. In this instance, the scope of the motion can be ascertained as an effort to direct the proceedings on Bill C-62 in a particular fashion, including in relation to its consideration at committee and report stage, which may or may not include legislative changes. If it is the will of the House to adopt an alternate but still compatible course of action, that is to instead refer the bill to committee with instructions and include specific provisions amending the text of Bill C-62, the Chair finds that it is within the scope of the motion. To support this conclusion, I refer the House to a similar programming motion that was adopted following a recorded division on April 28, 2021. It is found on page 853 of the Journals. An amendment to that programming motion had been agreed to. It specifically proposed amendments to a bill. In my opinion, the amendment to Government Business No. 34 is not much different from the example I just gave. For these reasons stated above, the Chair finds that the amendment to the motion on Government Business No. 34 is in order. I thank members for their attention on this matter.

558 words

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

Feb/13/24 6:35:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-62

Mr. Speaker, I believe it was the member from the Green Party who was just finishing his comments. I appreciate the fact that he put a great deal of emphasis on priorities. He mentioned a few issues, and I want to be sensitive to those issues concerning mental health, and the housing-related issues and so forth. The motion today on Bill C-62 is important for us to get to the next stage. Whatever one's position is on the issue, we need to recognize, whether it is the Supreme Court of Canada or the Quebec Appeal Court, the need to address the issue. I wonder if the member could pick up where he left off, before the debate came to an end, and give his personal opinion on why it is important, when we are communicating with people outside of the Ottawa bubble, that we be as factual as possible on the legislation.

155 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Feb/13/24 6:36:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North that it is important to be clear, and we must act expeditiously in advance of the March 17 deadline. I am glad to see that the governing party is moving this forward in order for us to do so. As we shared this morning, it is one of the reasons the Greens supported moving it with a time allocation motion in this case. This demonstrates that there are parliamentary tools available to move with urgency on issues that merit that. As I shared in my speech, when it comes to housing, we need more than the right words. We need to see the investments and the parliamentary tools to move more quickly. The same is the case for ending legislated poverty for people with disabilities.

137 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/13/24 6:37:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one striking thing about this debate, for me, is that no advocate of legalized or expanded euthanasia says that everybody should be able to access this thing because they want it. Rather, what advocates say is that people in certain situations should be able to access it. For instance, they say that if an able-bodied person comes to a doctor and says, “I want you to help me end my life”, they are offered some kind of suicide prevention. However, if a person with a disability says, “In the context of my situation, I want to end my life”, they might be offered suicide facilitation. This is not about a general policy of choice or autonomy, rather this is about saying that certain people who present with an apparent desire for death are treated one way and others are treated a different way. That raises a big problem in terms of how we value the lives of people with disabilities. I am curious to hear my colleague's response.

176 words

Mr. Mike Morrice

Feb/13/24 6:38:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in this debate, when we speak about the reality of legislated poverty for people with disabilities, I am concerned that it is only coming up today in this debate. It is important for all parliamentarians to consider how they spend their time on a regular basis, ensuring they continue to advocate to end legislated poverty, to improve the quality of life for people with disabilities, with the tools they have available to them here. I would encourage my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to consider using the tools he has available to him, for example, to push the Liberal government to fund the Canada disability benefit, a substantive measure that could make a real difference to improve the lives of people with disabilities, which we have not seen the Liberal government move ahead with, disappointingly so.

140 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Feb/13/24 6:39:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am having a hard time understanding what my colleague is saying. He knows very well that structural vulnerabilities, such as poverty, have an impact on overall health. Is he saying that we need to deal with that before we can allow people who are mentally ill to get relief from their irremediable suffering? That is what I am getting from his speech, when recommendations 5 and 6 of the panel's report indicate that, if there is any doubt whatsoever as to structural vulnerabilities, then medical assistance in dying will not be made available.

98 words

Mr. Mike Morrice

Feb/13/24 6:39:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, I apologize. I will reply in English to make sure I get my wording correct. In the future, I hope to do so in French. The short answer is yes. I believe very strongly that this Parliament should be working far more diligently toward closing our social safety net. Instead of the urgency it seems to have with expanding medical assistance in dying, I would rather see our Parliament close our social safety net first.

80 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/13/24 6:40:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Lethbridge. In my still, as yet, relatively short parliamentary career, it has been necessary for me to address this dark subject of legalized medically facilitated killing well over a dozen times. When I was elected eight years ago, it was not legal, under any circumstance, for a doctor to kill, or to assist in the killing of, a patient. Prior to that time, when this issue had been brought to the House of Commons, proposals for the legalization of this sort of killing had been defeated by massive margins, with a majority of Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats opposing such changes, just eight short years ago. I recall, as a young Conservative staffer in 2009, hearing and reflecting on the wise words of former NDP MP Joe Comartin, who told the House the following on October 2 of that year. He said: I have spoken to Carol Derbyshire, who is the head of the hospice. She said the hospice does not get requests for assisted suicide. They provide the care, not just to the patient but to the family. She was very clear on that. She has seen any number of surveys that say one of the major reasons, aside from pain, that people want assisted suicide in their regime is that they do not want to be a burden on their family, their society, their community. If we can build that system to make sure they do not have to be concerned about that, we take away any desire to terminate their lives arbitrarily and at an earlier date than would be natural. We need to look at our system right now.... At this point, approximately 20% of our population is covered by meaningful palliative care, hospice and a home care system. That is all we have in the country. Then there is another 15% or maybe 17% who are covered by partial assistance at the end of life. This former NDP MP foresaw how requests for premature death would emerge not primarily from some fixed and deeply held desire to die, but from a social, cultural and political context in which people in pain are either invited to stay or invited to leave and in which people are offered the support to stay or not. We are all social beings, and our exercise of autonomy happens in a social context. The current context is one of increasing atomization and division, economic failures leading to immense affordability challenges and a kind of moral chaos resulting from the common lack of constructive frameworks for finding meaning and purpose in life. The touchstones of connection, happiness and meaning are eroding. This leads to an increasing demand for government services that will, it is hoped, fill the gap left by declining community and family and that will provide people with support in finding connection, happiness and meaning when they are lacking. As these supports are never available from the state in ways that truly fulfill the desire for connection and community that we all have, the pain increases and leads more people to want to give up. This has been the trajectory of our society recently, with the additional reality that COVID-era restrictions and polarization accelerated the breakdown of connection and community among many people. As more and more people want to give up, the legalization of medically facilitated death is presented as a solution at the end of the road. Over the last eight years, as more and more people have come to the end of that road, the numbers continue to go up exponentially. This is the social context driving the mental health crisis we have, to which euthanasia is now being offered as a solution. In the speech from MP Comartin that I referred to, he also observed how a lack of proper training and emphasis on effective pain management meant that existing tools and technologies were not being deployed to relieve pain, even in the many cases where such relief was possible. He predicted, again correctly, that the legalization of euthanasia would lead to less attention to pain relief and thus further tilting the decision-making playing field away from life and toward death. That is exactly what we are seeing. John Paul II posited in the 1990s: [The] reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable “culture of death”. This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another. A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more favoured tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. In this way a kind of “conspiracy against life” is unleashed. This conspiracy involves not only individuals in their personal, family or group relationships, but goes far beyond, to the point of damaging and distorting, at the international level, relations between peoples and States. Eight years on, we are sadly seeing the flower of this predicted culture of death. We hear proposals for the killing of children, even babies, and for the killing of those with depression and other mental health challenges. We have heard many testimonies of people who have been called selfish for wanting to remain alive in a situation where they require the care and support of others. We are seeing the lives of those with disabilities, those facing homelessness and others facing pain and suffering devalued at the social, institutional and political levels. We see the manifesting of this war of the powerful against the weak, insofar as suicide prevention is offered to some, while suicide facilitation is offered to others, depending on pre-existing power and privilege. Proponents of euthanasia have never said that all people who want to die should be able to choose to die. Rather, they have said that certain kinds of people should be helped to die, while other kinds of people should be helped to live. This differential treatment of different people necessarily informs the social context in which people feel loved, included and happy, or not. Eight years on, Canada’s experiment with medically facilitated killing has failed. I will leave it to another time to consider whether it could have succeeded. Some will argue that it would have been possible to legalize euthanasia without unleashing the kind of ever-expanding culture of death that we see proposed. However, what is clear, at least in the context of our own experience, is that medically-facilitated killing has a taken on a kind of self-reinforcing logic that leads to constant expansion, a devaluing of the lives of the most vulnerable and eroding public and community support for the things that would actually improve the quality of life of those who suffer. One effect of this culture of death is that people in vulnerable situations actually fear interactions with the medical system because they do not want to be pressured toward suicide in a moment of weakness or vulnerability. I have specifically heard this concern, even now from people facing acute mental pain, that they do not want to seek help in many contexts because they are looking for life and dignity-affirming help, and they are afraid the so-called care they might receive would take the form of pressuring them toward an early exit. This is part of the reason Conservatives support the protection of conscience for individual medical practitioners and institutions. It is not just for the sake of the provider, but also for the sake of the patient, who should at least have the freedom to opt to access health care in a life and dignity-affirming environment, where they can be confident that they will not be pressured or even offered premature death. Understandably, many of those who are in a vulnerable state do not wish to even be offered such things, since the affirmation of life and meaning is an essential part of the proper course of treatment for those facing mental health challenges. After eight years, it is important that we stop and take stock of how much has changed, lest we forget that political choices have profound consequences and also that political choices, once made, can still be at least partially unmade. I am reminded of this every time I talk to a legislator in another country about Canada’s euthanasia regime. Legislators in other western democratic countries, including many from the left, are for the most part horrified by the present reality of euthanasia in Canada. One British legislator told their House of Commons the following: ...turning to the example of Canada across the pond, Living and Dying Well also found that clinicians reported five specific issues surrounding legalisation, including that it complicates the management of pre-existing symptoms; adversely impacts the important doctor-patient relationship; causes tension for families during what is often an already deeply challenging period; diverts resources away from crucial palliative care services; and confuses patients as to the nature and purpose of palliative care. When considered as a whole, those issues reported by practising clinicians in Canada are not something that we as lawmakers can or should overlook, and I believe that the highlighted impacts on palliative care provision are of particular concern. Why are concerns about Canada’s emergent culture of death not as well known or discussed in the Canadian House of Commons or in Canadian society as they are in the British House of Commons or in other countries? Here, I do want to point the finger specifically at our state-funded media, the CBC. I am most enthusiastic about our Conservative commitment to defund the CBC because of the shameless way that this organization uses its funded and privileged position to push stories that glorify euthanasia, while ignoring the pain and suffering of those whose experiences the CBC does not want to share. Good ideas win fair debates, and my constituents should not be forced to give over a billion dollars every year to an organization that desperately hunts for stories aimed at masking the dark realities of medically facilitated killing and suicide. Canada was not this way eight years ago, and fortunately, Canada will not be this way forever. The end of this fanatically pro-euthanasia pro-death government is now more than reasonably foreseeable. A Conservative government would forever dispense with this lingering proposed legalization of medically facilitated suicide for those with mental health challenges. We would turn hurt into hope. We would stand with the most vulnerable and work to revive the structures of family and community that advance connection, happiness and meaning. We would celebrate life instead of death for all, not just for the privileged. For nations and for people there is always hope. “For the wretched of the earth, there is a flame that never dies. Even the darkest nights will end and the sun will rise.”

1916 words

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

Feb/13/24 6:50:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I for one believe in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When the Supreme Court made the decision under Carter that we needed to develop MAID legislation in Canada, there was a great deal of consultation. We all have personal opinions on complicated issues, including me, but I respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the court decisions, whether from the Supreme Court of Canada or the Superior Court in the province of Quebec. Could the member provide his thoughts regarding whether he supports the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the decisions that have been made through the courts?

104 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Feb/13/24 6:51:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have more respect for the charter than I believe this member of the government has. Notably, they have chosen, in the case of the Emergencies Act ruling, to appeal a court ruling. In the case of the Truchon decision, made by one judge, they chose not to appeal. I think this was clearly because the ideological minister of justice at the time was desperate to justify the expansion of the already flawed regime. Therefore, the government arbitrarily chooses not to appeal certain rulings when it likes the ruling and to appeal other rulings. This is not about what the courts have said. The government has consistently pushed an ideological agenda that goes far beyond what the courts have said, and the mental health provision has absolutely nothing to do with the court ruling. The members opposite would sometimes like to dispense with an actual substantive engagement on the topic and just say they are going to let other people make the decision. However, it does not wash, especially in the case where they chose not to appeal the ruling.

182 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Feb/13/24 6:52:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will try to be polite because I thought my colleague's speech was quite exaggerated. That is not surprising, because I have heard his leader say in the past that people are requesting MAID because they do not have enough to eat. When the leader is so flippant, it is easy to understand why a member would frame MAID as a conspiracy against life, as a culture of death, as a war of the most powerful against the weak. I would like to pick up on what my colleague was saying. I get the impression that, if we had let him continue a bit longer, he was going to tell us that contraception was also one of those conspiracies against life. I just want to be clear with my colleague. He began his speech by telling us that people might request MAID because they were afraid of being a burden. I just want to let him know, having been through this with family members, that it is because people are afraid of suffering. When we love someone who is suffering and we know that the end is near, we try to do everything possible to make them comfortable. I do not think he understands that.

208 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Feb/13/24 6:53:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, respectfully to my colleague, I have journeyed with close family members who have suffered significantly at the time of their death. I think one of the biggest challenges we see in this country, and members of the NDP have pointed this out in previous Parliaments, is a significant lack of proper training in pain management and proper available palliative care, as well as instances of people being actively pushed towards death by the system. I am not worried about MAID being offered to everyone; euthanasia is not being offered to everyone. Euthanasia is being offered to certain people in certain situations, reflecting a social and political view of the value of their life. This is what the disability community has pushed Parliament to hear. When we offer suicide facilitation for people with disabilities and prevention for people without disabilities, that clearly sends the wrong message about valuing the universal value and dignity of all human life.

158 words

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

Feb/13/24 6:54:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-62

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is mixing up the timelines here. He keeps referring to eight years; in fact, the essence of the bill we are talking about happened three years ago. Now, if the member wants to talk about someone suffering from stage 4 cancer and just taking some painkillers, I will let him defend himself. However, on what Bill C-62 is doing, we are dealing with a March 17 deadline. This morning, the Conservatives voted against time management of the bill. However, he must understand that we only have two sitting weeks to get the bill to the Governor General's desk. Why did Conservatives vote against that when we are dealing with a hard deadline, understanding that the law will change if we do not get the bill passed?

133 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Feb/13/24 6:55:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in terms of legislative timing, the government missed an opportunity to actually resolve this issue when it voted against the private member's bill from my colleague, the member for Abbotsford. Conservatives put forward a bill in the fall that would fix this problem and forever put a stake in this terrible idea of euthanasia for those with mental health challenges. Now, we want the bill before us, which would extend the timeline, to pass so that when we have a Conservative government, we can actually permanently fix this problem. However, it is up to the government to allocate more days for debate; I would suggest that they do so, so more members can speak and so we can get it done before the deadline.

127 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas (Lethbridge, CPC)

Feb/13/24 6:56:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the number of Canadians ending their lives through medical assistance in dying is accelerating at a rate that outpaces that in any other country. Canada's most recent annual report on medical assistance in dying, which I will call MAID from this point forward, shows that MAID deaths are actually up by 30% from just one year ago. This is not just a one-time occasion or occurrence. Rather, this is actually a trend. Year over year, we are seeing a rapid increase. The matter at hand today, in the most literal sense, is a matter of life and death. Around the world, people are watching Canada and the debate taking place in this House. They are doing so with an overwhelming belief that what the current government is considering is, in fact, reckless. That is extending medical assistance in dying to those with a mental illness. This topic deserves our utmost attention today in this place and, my hope would be, beyond. Last spring, the Liberals created legislation that would grant MAID to those struggling with a mental illness, starting on March 17, which is only a few weeks away. Thanks to the rallying cry of medical experts, those who struggle with a mental illness and concerned Canadians from far and wide, along with Conservative members of Parliament, the government has been forced into a position where they have actually had to hit the pause button. This is not permanent; it is only temporary, lasting for three years. We will then see this legislation back before the House, with the current government desiring to offer medical assistance in dying to those who struggle with a mental illness. When considering whether a mental disorder is irremediable, Parliament has heard from clinicians, who stated that it is only predictable 50% of the time. In other words, 50% of the time, clinicians are able to say that the individual will not recover from the mental illness. The other 50% of the time, they actually get it wrong. It is not the same as a brain tumour, for example, that can be seen on a scan, where there is evidence that can be judged and physical circumstances that can be known. Mental illness does not operate that way. While doctors might be correct 50% of the time, this means that, with regard to a prognosis, they are also wrong 50% of the time. To be very frank, the toss of a coin feels like a rather sad, wrong way to make a life or death decision. That is really what we are talking about: the toss of a coin, where 50% of the time, they get heads, and 50% of the time, they get tails. That is how this decision would be made if we were to move forward with medical assistance in dying for those who have a mental illness. This is absolutely wrong. That Parliament would even consider it is deeply troubling. Of course, we know that this has nothing to do with whether our physicians and our psychiatrists are functioning in an adequate manner. It has everything to do with the fact that mental illnesses are incredibly complex and difficult to understand. It is important, as we engage in this debate, to consider what medical experts are saying. We heard from Physicians Together with Vulnerable Canadians, which reported, “Given that there is no medical evidence to reliably predict which patients with a mental illness will not get better, MAID for mental illness will end the lives of patients who would have recovered.” The Canadian Centre for Suicide Prevention echoed this, reporting, “There is no consensus on the meaning of irremediability for any mental disorder.” Dr. Gaind, chief of psychiatry at Sunnybrook Hospital, raised the alarm; he said, we “cannot predict irremediability when it comes to mental illness”. Dr. Zivot agreed, saying, “mental illness lacks a strict definition and therefore, by lack of definition, can never be grievous and irremediable”. He went on to say that “if MAID becomes a treatment option within mental health care, the bond of trust and the pledge between doctor and patient is destroyed”. Those who live with a mental illness need hope, not death. They need us to believe in them when they are unable to believe in themselves. It is incumbent upon us, as a society, to extend hope, to offer support and to give treatment, not death. When we consider extending medical assistance in dying to those who are suffering from mental illness, many Canadians are left extremely vulnerable. When an offer of death is extended to those who are struggling, we communicate a message that there is really no hope and no opportunity for recovery; we communicate that the best relief would be to exit this life. That lacks compassion. It is deeply troubling. Laurel Walker has been very public about her story. She talks about her darkest days of living with a mental illness, about suicide being an ideation of hers, day after day. Then she talks about the fact that she had this glimmer of hope that somehow kept her alive. She warned Parliament that, if we were to go in this direction of legalizing medical assistance in dying for those who have a mental illness, we would be robbing them of that hope and sending this grave message that, really, death is their only option. Dr. Sareen offered the same warning and shared that making MAID available for mental disorders would undermine suicide prevention efforts and lead to unnecessary deaths. He said: When a society makes MAID available, the population believes it is a way to end suffering. In other jurisdictions that have had MAID available for mental disorders, not only are there deaths due to MAID, but there are also deaths related to non-MAID suicides. In other words, we see an increase not only in medical assistance in dying rates but also in suicide in general. There is this lack of hope and this message conveyed by society that there is no future. As Canadians, we can do better. I dare say we must do better. We cannot give up on people such as Laurel, who are fighting for their very lives. These folks are in desperate need of hope and help. They want treatment, not death. Those struggling with their mental health deserve that element of support. Rather than looking to facilitate the deaths of fellow Canadians who are suffering, we must focus on how we can better provide the needed treatment. In an article, psychiatrist John Maher is quoted as expressing that “Mental illness is treatable, and death is not treatment.” We know that the problem is rarely only mental illness. It is often within the larger context of social challenges as well, whether this is not having basic necessities, such as housing, or a social structural support that is not available to these folks. Again, we have a responsibility as a society to make sure that those things are available to these individuals. Death is not the answer. To my fellow colleagues in this place, I would make the following plea: Let us not just simply push the temporary pause button, as if to say their life is worth something now but, in a few years, it may no longer be. It is as if to say that the flip of a coin might not be acceptable now, but maybe we will flip a coin in three years; that might be okay. Rather, let us commit to permanently valuing those who live with a mental illness, and let us make sure that they are forever offered the adequate health care supports that are needed. Death is not that. Christie Pollock submitted testimony calling for great caution. She is a 30-year-old who has her own struggle. She talks about the hope that she is now able to offer, because she runs a support group. Then she talks about the fact that, if medical assistance in dying had been offered to her, she might not be here. She goes on to say that, sure, she has her struggles, and she is not healed, but she has found a mix of therapy and medication that is getting her through. Her days are filled with hope. It is not just hope for herself; she is also able to offer hope to others. Madam Speaker and members of this House, this is where we should wish to land, where the people of this place offer hope to Canadians, not death.

1437 words

Mr. Marcus Powlowski (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.)

Feb/13/24 7:06:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not in too much disagreement with a lot of what the member had to say. As a long-time doctor, I certainly know that one ought to be cautious, and I think our government has been pretty cautious. We first put a one-year pause on this; now we have a three-year pause. I hate to get political in this political place, but the reality is that one of the reasons we should hesitate to implement MAID for mental illness is a lack of mental health services. Our government has been fighting to increase those services. Will the Conservative Party make the same commitment to providing adequate mental services for Canadians?

116 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Feb/13/24 7:06:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to point to the supports his government has offered to those with mental illness. What we heard in this place, in Parliament, from witness after witness is that the supports are inadequate. People desperately need more support. On this side of the House, I think of my hon. colleague, whose name I am not allowed to use, and his tremendous effort in advocating for support for those who live with a mental illness and his tremendous effort with bringing in a three-digit suicide line to help prevent suicide, and of course we know that is most often associated with a mental illness. Not only are we going to make tremendous efforts when we are in government, but the reality is that we do not wait. We are already making a meaningful difference for Canadians.

143 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Feb/13/24 7:07:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for ruling the amendment in order. The Bloc Québécois used this wording in order to recognize the fact that Quebec is a leader in this area, as proven by the unanimous motion recently adopted by the National Assembly. With this amendment, the Bloc Québécois wants to be able to move things along in Quebec. Does my colleague care about the will of Quebec, whose values are quite different from those defended by the Conservatives? Consequently, if the Conservative Party takes power within three years—which, according to the polls, is not impossible—do they intend to scrap the bill at the end of those three years?

128 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Feb/13/24 7:08:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as Conservatives, our desire is to be on the side of vulnerable Canadians and to be their greatest advocate. Our desire is to listen to the pleas of those who came before the House. That is our job. We have been elected to represent our constituents to the best of our ability, so when it came to hearing testimony on medical assistance in dying being extended to those with a mental illness, we leaned in, listened and did the hard work. Furthermore, we went out and listened to Canadians beyond this place, sitting down with them in our constituency offices and meeting with them during town hall meetings. Our leader also went on tour across the country, leaning in and hearing the concerns of Canadians, and this came up as one that Canadians do not want. They do not want medical assistance in dying to be extended to those who have a mental illness. Instead, they want to see greater support for those who struggle. They want to see a better medical system put in place. They want to see better health care provisions put in place. They want to see greater support from society as a whole.

200 words