SoVote

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

Feb/13/24 9:14:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, this question demonstrates that the Conservatives are clearly not here to listen to Canadians. I think it makes sense for our laws to adapt to the population's needs. That is particularly true in Quebec, which is even prepared to open up the right to advance requests. MAID has come a long way, both legislatively and in the opinion of the entire population, since the first iteration of the law came into force in 2016. In contrast to the Conservatives, we are demonstrating that we are capable of adapting, that we listen to everyone's opinions and comments and that we ensure we take them into account while protecting those with additional needs.

119 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Feb/13/24 9:15:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the member for Sherbrooke. First, her minister acknowledged that Quebec's interdepartmental action plan for 2022-26 was excellent. We have heard a number of people here say that services need to be improved. What is she waiting for to transfer the money to Quebec? Second, given what our Conservative colleagues have said, does she realize that by postponing the decision until 2027, the Liberals are passing the buck to a potential future Conservative government that will put an end to any hope of relief for people suffering from mental disorders?

98 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière

Feb/13/24 9:16:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-62

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his two questions. I would also like to acknowledge his exemplary and always highly professional work on this issue. Having sat in on several meetings of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, I have personally witnessed his passion for this subject. As far as mental health transfers are concerned, we continue to make very significant investments. We are always working with Quebec to ensure that the money flows and is put to good use. With regard to the second question, I would say that I truly and sincerely hope that the next government will be a Liberal government and that we can continue to move forward with the implementation of Bill C-62 and medical assistance in dying, both for advance requests and for people whose sole medical condition is a mental illness. I agree with him that Quebec is truly one step ahead.

154 words

Mr. Joël Lightbound (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

Feb/13/24 9:17:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a gripping topic. I think that very reasonable people can have different views. My colleague just talked about Quebec, which is indeed one step ahead. However, let us not forget that in June 2023, the National Assembly voted in legislation that completely excluded medical assistance in dying for persons suffering solely from a mental illness, following testimony from psychiatrists from throughout Quebec. Psychiatrists from Université Laval in my riding shared with me their reservations about moving forward on this issue. In my view, what the government is suggesting today is to slow down because we are clearly not ready. There are so many questions that still need to be answered about opening up MAID for this specific category of patient. Without being against MAID in general, I would like to know what she thinks about comparing what the government is doing and what the National Assembly of Quebec has decided.

155 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière

Feb/13/24 9:18:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-62

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the great discussion that we had on this subject recently. I agree with him. That is what Bill C-62 is for. This is a very controversial subject. Like my other colleagues, I get letters from various institutions and groups that show that there are differing opinions in our society about people whose only underlying medical condition is mental illness. We need to make sure that everything is in place, including standards, tools and practitioner training, so that patients' eligibility is properly assessed and practitioners are comfortable applying this measure.

98 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Feb/13/24 9:19:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-314

Mr. Speaker, for a lot of us in the House, this feels like a case of déjà vu. It was pretty much a year ago that we were dealing with the exact same issue, and the government is doing the same thing, making the play to just punt the ball down the field yet again. Of course, it is talking about the issue of expanding assisted suicide to make it available for people suffering from mental illness. However, after the Liberals decided to open the door to that, they took a tiny step back and said, “We should wait for a year to go by before it can really begin.” At that time, we Conservatives said, during the debate, that there was no possible way for one year to ever be enough time. For one thing, the Liberals rushed to expand MAID without carefully and thoroughly reviewing the concerns that already existed under the original program. That turned out to be another empty promise, and they recklessly pushed ahead with making assisted suicide more widely available. It became clearer than ever that they were not going to make any serious effort to protect vulnerable Canadians from all the harm that this new government decision will inflict. One year is a very short amount of time, especially when the slow speed of bureaucracy is involved. At least now, the Liberals seem to finally realize that it was ridiculous for them to act as though this could just be delayed for a year and then everything would be fine. That year flew by quickly, and now we are back where we started. This time, they want to postpone it for three years instead of one. When we hear the Liberals talk about this new bill, it is clear that they still have not learned the more important lesson from their terrible mistake. After the bill before us passes, the sad reality is that the Liberals have not closed the door that they opened a few years ago. They never should have opened it. In fact, it is quite the opposite: They are choosing to leave it open, despite all the red flags and the public outcry. It is the same game they were playing last year, except for one major difference: The Liberal plan to offer MAID for mental illness will come into effect after the next election. They have already indicated that this is what they want to happen eventually, if they get their way. However, they also know that they have pushed things way too far and that they cannot get away with it anymore. Enough is enough. Canadians do not support the Liberals' out-of-touch agenda. This decision, like so many others, will make it harder for them to win another election. An Angus Reid poll discovered that three in 10 Canadians, fewer than the number who voted for the current government, support expanding MAID to those suffering exclusively with mental illness. Therefore, once again, the government will try to cover up its failure. While it tries to do that, Conservatives proudly stand on the side of common sense for the common people. We will reverse the government's terrible decision to expand assisted suicide. As the official opposition, we have already started to work on it. Conservatives introduced Bill C-314 to repeal the Liberal plan to offer assisted suicide for mental illness once and for all. However, as expected, last fall, the Liberal government broke ranks with its coalition partner and voted it down. Even though it did not pass, it called the government's bluff. Liberals showed their true colours that day and made it absolutely clear where they stood. They are not interested in doing what it takes to protect the lives of Canadians who struggle with their mental health. The real reason for their delay is to use it as a stalling tactic for a government that is clearly in decline; despite that, we are glad to see that the bill will prevent tragic deaths from occurring before a Conservative government can bring in permanent protection for Canadians. We know that it needs to happen. There have been many troubling stories, which the government apparently chooses to ignore. Last summer, a woman in Vancouver went to a hospital looking for support. She was experiencing suicidal thoughts and did not feel safe at home. During assessment, a clinician told her that there were not enough hospital beds and that the system was overwhelmed. Then she was asked: “Have you considered MAID?” She felt shocked and told her story, and I will read something she said in the Global News article. It reads: “No matter how much you struggle with mental illness or disability or chronic illness, no one should make a judgment about the value of your life or if it’s worth living.” That should not be a controversial thing to say, but the Prime Minister and his government have brought us to a dark place. Only a couple of months ago, a 52-year-old grandfather who had cancer was waiting for chemotherapy and treatment. He was told there was a backlog, and the wait was taking longer than it should have. With worsening health complications, he applied for MAID and it went through. As members can imagine, the family was devastated by their experience. There was also Corporal Christine Gauthier, a veteran and Paralympian, who called Veterans Affairs Canada to get a ramp installed. She was also asked to consider MAID. How did we get to the point where a veteran who served our country was told to consider ending her life instead of receiving the help she was seeking, something as simple as adding a ramp, for her own personal mobility? This is not the only time such a thing happened. When something like that happens, it creates a situation that makes it more difficult for people to trust government services. When someone has these experiences or hears about them, it erodes their trust. Actually, it destroys their trust. During a personal crisis or a moment of weakness, they cannot help but worry that they will die because they simply spoke with the wrong person at the wrong time. That is a serious problem, and we should be working to fix it instead of making things worse. We are heading down the wrong path, because the government's approach to this issue sends people a message of despair: that they should give up because their life is not worth living. With respect to that point, I hope everyone here will take heart in the story of Tyler Dunlop from Orillia, Ontario. At 37 years old, he had been homeless for years. He felt suicidal and planned to apply for MAID, but then he received some help in his life. Over time, he had a major shift in his thinking and experienced a spiritual transformation. After changing his mind to no longer seek assisted suicide, he released a new book, called Therefore Choose Life: My Journey from Hopelessness to Hope. We should all be glad that he is still here with us and can tell his story. I want to share some of what he says in his book. He writes, “Though I had resigned myself to the fact that I'd be dead soon, my conscience—what has been called the voice of God—began to trouble me, the more I thought about MAID.” He goes on, “Around this time, much to my chagrin, I learned that the Liberal Party decided to postpone for one year the expansion of medically assisted death to Canadians with mental illness, so, like it or not, my appointment with death would have to wait.” If not for the previous postponement, then, there is a good chance that Tyler would not be alive today. What if he had died so young, instead of simply receiving the help he needed and the compassion he was looking for? He has found a renewed sense of purpose and a new life through his Christian faith, thankfully escaping being yet another victim to a culture of death in which some people are considered more worthy of life than others. Now, he is able to share his story and his conviction that government can never replace God as the moral authority over right and wrong. This is an encouraging story of survival, but there are more people out there who need our support. According to Statistics Canada, 4,500 Canadians die by suicide each year. That is 12 per day. That means 4,000 people struggling with mental disorders. What message will we send to those people who are at risk? Then, there is the ongoing epidemic of addiction and substance abuse, which can officially be considered mental disorders. Will we allow assisted suicide to expand to the point that addiction makes somebody eligible? Where will it end? Life is precious and something that must be defended, especially when it is vulnerable Canadians who think that the only way out of the situation that they are in is death. However, we are losing sight of that. The Liberals and their ideological allies blatantly ignored alarm after alarm raised by witnesses and community members at the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, which is why Conservatives on the committee had to publish their dissenting reports. Despite attempts by the expert panel, which the government selected, to block key stakeholders or ignore committee testimony, we are working as hard as we can to represent these voices. Expert after expert and story after story have raised alarms, but the Liberals remain committed to their agenda, no matter what. Canadians cannot trust them to fix what they have broken, but they can count on Conservatives to continue bringing hope and provide real help for those who are suffering. That is what our country needs right now. Our country needs hope.

1674 words

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

Feb/13/24 9:28:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-62

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and I wonder, if he were to apply the same principles that he talks about with regard to Bill C-62 to MAID as a whole, whether he would actually support the legislation with that particular amendment, even if it were taken out. Would he apply those same principles that he was talking about to the MAID legislation as a whole?

68 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Feb/13/24 9:29:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there are a few important points that we need to talk about first. First of all, the Liberals did not actually complete the mandatory review that the original legislation had. If that review had happened properly, I would be willing to bet that we would not be where we are today. The next point I want to make is that a couple of years ago the government promised $4.5 billion or maybe $6 billion for mental health. I do not remember the exact amount. I stand to be corrected, but as far as I am aware, so far, it is zero dollars. The government talks about making sure there are supports there for people with mental health, but the only support I am aware of right now is the 988 hotline that my Conservative colleague has been able to get in place.

145 words

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

Feb/13/24 9:30:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary fails to acknowledge is the many ways in which the government's policies on euthanasia have been a profound failure. In fact, it has been repeatedly called out, not only by those who are concerned about the impact on those struggling with mental health challenges, but also by those within the disability community, which has been nearly unanimous in their criticism of the government's approach. The disability community has identified how the approach the government is taking is undermining the services that they wish to access, and it is in fact devaluing the lives and contributions of people living with disabilities. The Liberal government and the parliamentary secretary need to acknowledge that. I want to ask the member a question. There were some very specific constructive proposals around this in the last Conservative election platform, things such as how a doctor should not be bringing up and proposing MAID to someone who has not asked for it. At a minimum, if there is going to be a conversation about euthanasia, it should be initiated by the patient. It should not be something a doctor, someone in the health care system or someone who works for a government department, such as veterans affairs, is suggesting to them. Does the member agree that one reasonable reform would be to say that it should be the patient bringing up the conversation, if it is a conversation they want to have, not somebody else bringing it up and suggesting death to them?

255 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Feb/13/24 9:31:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, if the euthanasia framework is going to be in place, to me, that is the only way that it should be in place. The patient needs to be the one who is initiating the conversation. The fact that multiple government departments are on record as asking people or offering people medical assistance in dying is absolutely absurd. That speaks to all kinds of levels of failure from the Liberal government. There are people who cannot find a home who are looking for medical assistance in dying. Veterans have been offered medical assistance in dying. For somebody who could not receive health care to treat cancer, and it is not like cancer is some rare disease in this country, but this person could not receive treatment for cancer, and he chose MAID instead, even though he did not necessarily want it but because he was unable to get treatment that should normally be readily available for him. That is ridiculous. The number of failures by the Liberal government is absolutely ridiculous.

173 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Feb/13/24 9:32:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, some Conservatives seem to think the Criminal Code no longer exists. We have had these debates before. When someone nefarious is working in the health care system, they simply need to be fired and reported to the police. That can happen. The provisions are there. I therefore invite my colleagues who know of cases like this, which are always very specific cases, to report these people to the police. Are we going to generalize to such an extent that we are going to prevent any suffering person from asserting their right to self-determination and deciding what is good for them when it comes to something as intimate as their own death? It is odd that Conservatives are libertarians when it comes to economics, yet when it comes to moral issues, they think the government needs to be in charge.

142 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Feb/13/24 9:33:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly hope that anybody who is found to be pushing MAID on somebody when they do not actually want it would be charged. They should be charged because that is absolutely ridiculous. I do not have any faith that that would actually happen. I think there are so many ways that people can get around that, or just say that they were simply initiating a conversation, that it was just a kind of a comment or that they thought they had consent from them to be able to talk about it. There are so many vagaries that could be introduced for people who are offered that. At the end of the day, it comes down to this main point: The government exists, in part, to protect Canadians. It should be offering hope, not death.

138 words

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ)

Feb/13/24 9:34:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to recover from that. It is a good thing I wrote down a few words, because I have a lot to say tonight. My goal is for those who do not want to listen to me to leave the chamber. They can listen to my speech again tomorrow morning when they are feeling good and ready to hear about the beauty of life and something that is part of life. I will start with this. As we have said many times this evening, Quebec is ahead of the curve when it comes to these matters. It has been 10 years since the Quebec National Assembly passed medical assistance in dying, based on the work of the Select Committee on Dying with Dignity. Dignity is about respect for the individual. Dignity is the foundation of the issue we are talking about. Neither partisanship nor any creation dictates who we are. We are talking about human dignity. I hope that my colleague who just left and who had another point of view on the issue will have the opportunity to listen to the interpretation of my speech. This is a very sensitive issue. It is a social issue with serious consequences. That is why it is important. That is why the work that my colleague did and that the entire special joint committee did is important. They realized that there was a little something missing to ensure that there are no flaws in the process concerning the choice of our lives. We are talking about dying, but it is our life. Who can make decisions about our life? It is vital to understand that society as it is today is moving forward much more quickly than legislators are. That is a fact, so we have to have the courage to act. We took an extra year. What concerns me is that we cannot know where we will be in three years. Can we get a guarantee on that promise? When my constituents talk to me about promises, they say that they will believe it when they see it. People are suffering now. We need to act now. I am addressing all of my colleagues. Let us get this straight. I am sorry to bother my colleagues, but what I am saying is very important. It is late and we are all going to bed soon. I am sorry, but this issue affects me deeply. An hon. member: It is a matter of respect. Ms. Marie‑Hélène Gaudreau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of dignity and respect. The role of the government is not to claim to know better than an individual what is good for that individual concerning something as personal as their own death. We are talking about people enduring intolerable suffering, sometimes for decades. I am not talking about a headache. Who are we to know what is good for them? If we could agree on that at least, we could probably make a lot of progress. Maybe partisanship would be set aside for once. Dying is part of life. The only thing a human being knows when they are born is that they are going to die. Am I telling my colleagues anything new? The answer is no. Having the right to choose for oneself, based on one's values and level of suffering, is that possible in a free country, or in any case a very free Quebec? It is essential. In Quebec, we have a consensus. Quebec society is ready. Quebeckers have been looking at this for decades. Just because other provinces want to intervene on this issue does not mean we have to infringe on the rights of people who are ceaselessly crying out to us for help. My father said, “I can't live in this coffin any longer”. He had ALS. I think MPs are familiar with this disease, as one of the members suffered from it a few years ago. “My body can't take it anymore. I want to live, but I can't stand the suffering anymore.” That is the crux of the issue. There are still certain pieces missing, particularly when it comes to expertise. There are still pieces missing when it comes to ensuring there is no bias when the choice is made. In 2015, when my father requested MAID, he was not eligible. ALS is a death sentence, but no one knows when the disease will progress to the terminal stage. His death was a long, drawn-out process. My father always said that human beings must be respected throughout their journey. How does it feel to see someone suffer? We want to help and support them, but when we know there is no way out, no treatment, no hope, what do we do? Some will say that these people must continue to suffer and simply wait for death to come. My father used to say that he was living in his coffin. My father's illness changed my life because I witnessed it for 20 years. I agree that we need to address the process. What is left to do? We need a few more meetings. That is what we have been hearing for the past few days. I invite members of the House to reach out to someone who has experienced this process first-hand with a loved one. That is what I went through with my father. Above all, we must avoid talking drivel. I often hear remarks that I will not repeat. Who are they to say such unbelievable things? I will conclude my speech with the following. When people are suffering unbearably, when science does not allow them to have any hope, they must have a choice. It is a matter of solidarity, humanity, altruism and compassion. That is why, this evening, in light of everything I have just said, I move the following amendment: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2, as no clause addresses the call for the Government of Canada, adopted unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly, to amend the Criminal Code to align with the Quebec legislation on end-of-life care by allowing advance consent requests.”.

1089 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/13/24 9:44:51 p.m.
Watch

The amendment is in order. Questions and comments. The member for Louis-Hébert.

15 words

Mr. Joël Lightbound (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

Feb/13/24 9:45:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely want to thank my colleague for her speech. I believe that this is an issue where the debates are particularly instructive for members. We have been dealing with these matters in the House of Commons since 2016 and my position has changed over time, including on advance requests. I think I still need to study the issue, but I understand that this can be useful in some cases. I have met people who could have used this. I have heard some very touching stories, even from people close to me, about people who could use this. However, on the subject of mental illness, my position has also crystallized. Many psychiatrists have told me that this track was not necessarily desirable, that it was far too difficult to gauge the irremediability of a mental illness. My colleague mentioned the consensus in Quebec. Yes, there is one on advance requests. However, as far as mental illness as a sole reason for opening the door to medical assistance in dying goes, the National Assembly of Quebec did vote in Bill 11, in June 2023, as my colleague mentioned. It excludes mental illness because there is in fact no consensus within the medical community. Some members of that community shared their deep concerns with me about opening up MAID for this. I would like my colleague's thoughts on that.

230 words

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Feb/13/24 9:47:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as for that vote, I want my colleague to know that it came out to 57%. Also, the member should be careful when talking about provisions that exclude mental disorders. It is time to get educated. Tomorrow morning, I am going to talk about advance requests. Let us imagine that I have been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and I choose not to put my loved ones through that. The day I am no longer able to recognize my children or I act a certain way because I do not recognize myself and have no awareness of my situation, a whole host of specialists will come on the scene. I experienced that with my father, who, incidentally, had no dementia whatsoever. Falling through all those safety nets means far more exclusion than acceptance. When it comes to mental health, again, what we might need to do is dig a little deeper and ensure we have all the tools to reassure people. They need to know that this is not a slippery slope to culling the herd, as some people are saying.

183 words

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

Feb/13/24 9:48:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of presumptive comments made in the House about what the people think or want. I do think it is important to just say, at the outset, that every poll that has been done, that I have ever seen, shows that a substantial majority of people in this country do not support the expansion of euthanasia to include those for whom mental health is the sole underlying condition. I do want to ask the member about advance directives. I think there is a lot of misinformation and confusion around the issue of advance directives. The idea of advance directives implies that I could know how my future self would feel under the conditions of a particular disease or challenge. Garnett Genuis today, at age 37, could know for sure what a future version of himself would want, in terms of life or death, if he were to experience dementia, Alzheimer's or something like that. The reality is I have no idea what that future person would want in that situation. The idea that a present person could bind a future self under different circumstances to die in a particular situation is a radical denial of autonomy. It makes my present self the dictator over my future self. A position of autonomy emphasizes the legitimacy of consent in the moment, but not the denial of autonomy in which a prior version of self binds the future self.

243 words

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Feb/13/24 9:50:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when members talk, they should at least have a basic knowledge of the medical context, of what is happening on the ground. Unfortunately, it is pretty clear that we do not all have the same basic knowledge. I therefore cannot answer my colleague. Does he even know what an advance request is? I hear them talking about euthanasia. We are not talking about the same thing. We need to be on the same planet to have a dialogue. I think we need to look at this in committee. At the same time, given that Quebec is ready, we need to be allowed to do as we see fit. All the Conservatives have to do is mind their own business. When they form government 10 years from now, they will say no. As for us, we will be free.

140 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Feb/13/24 9:51:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are here today because without immediate intervention by Parliament, the expansion of medical assistance in dying to individuals whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder will come into force on March 17. That is only a few weeks away, at a time when this country is experiencing a mental health crisis, the isolation of seniors, toxic drugs poisoning people in communities across Canada, inadequate OAS increases and still, unfortunately, and hard to imagine, no Canada disability benefit in place for people living with disabilities who are also living in poverty. The necessary safety social nets are missing, yet we are having a debate about an extension to medical assistance in dying. Why is the fact that the social safety net not in place so important? People in Canada deserve the dignity to live healthy lives and to live lives where they are not in poverty. I want to talk about the Canada disability benefit because the budget is coming. The next budget is coming very soon, and it is the expectation of the NDP and the expectation of Canadians that the Liberal government will live up to its commitment, its promise made in 2015, that there would be a Canada disability benefit. Too many people in the disability community are waiting for this disability benefit to lift them out of poverty. When I say too many, even one is too many. I am encouraging the Liberal government, which I know is listening closely to this debate, to actually do something and to get the Canada disability benefit into the pockets of the people who need it in this country so that we can start to have serious conversations about how to advance medical assistance in dying. We certainly cannot do it in the middle of a mental health crisis, while our communities are being poisoned by toxic drugs and while people living in poverty with a disability have no social safety net and no reliable income. I also think it is a disgrace, at this point in time, that the Liberal government is not considering the impacts of these clawbacks on persons with disabilities and anyone who is living on the poverty line, who are relying on social benefits, which they are entitled to, from the federal government, which are being rolled back. I think specifically about CERB at this point in time. We know that many Canadians, in good faith, applied for the CERB and got the CERB. We now have a federal government that has decided it is a good idea to start targeting people already living in poverty to get their CERB back. They know these people are living in poverty. They know the incomes of these people and they continue to go after them. At the same time, they are giving free rides to corporate CEOs who are taking home millions of dollars a year in salaries and bonuses, and not looking at the way they took wage subsidies and gave them away to their shareholders and in their own bonus packages. I think about Air Canada specifically. The government decided to give it a bailout during the pandemic. Air Canada said that the government could have it back because the government is not allowing it to give it to its executives as bonuses. These are the choices that the federal government is making. It is giving CEOs and large corporations the regular free ride while targeting people living in poverty. Today, I was reading the report from the federal housing advocate. Human rights are being violated right now. We are talking about the expansion of MAID for mental illness as the sole condition, and I put a big blame on the Conservatives here because I have been sitting in a number of studies in HUMA, on housing. We know that the Conservatives walked away and lost 800,000 units of affordable housing in this country. Conservatives are the instigators of the problem that is manifesting on the ground right now that the Liberals did not fix when they came into power. The housing advocate said that Canadians' human rights are being violated because they do not have access to housing. It is despicable. If our country cannot use our natural resources to make sure that people are not living in tents outside the airport in Vancouver, that is totally unacceptable. I blame both the Conservatives and the Liberals because they know what has been happening, that it has been happening for decades and they have done nothing about it. The housing advocate told the government that a national encampment response plan needs to be in place by August 31. I am sorry to say that, based on the speed at which the Liberal government moves, that is highly unlikely. I hope it takes up the challenge from the federal housing advocate, because no one should have to live in an encampment without access to clean water, waste removal and garbage pickup. We would think the federal government could at least support cities with respect to garbage pickup so people have access to clean spaces when they are forced into a tent encampment. I would ask the Prime Minister and any of the Liberal MPs to walk down Wellington Street, the ByWard Market or Sparks Street. They walk by these people every single day and do nothing. We know that the health ministers across the country are concerned about this bill before us today. We also know the Liberal government is playing snail mail on pharmacare, the pharmacare that can help people with their mental health and help people take their medication properly so they can be healthy. The Liberal government has decided that is something that is going to snail along. Again, the deadline is very short on that. We are talking about these social safety net pieces the Liberal government is moving at a snail's pace on, and the Conservatives are to blame for the conditions of the housing market and housing for people in this country right now. I want to highlight that Conservatives also voted against every single social program and initiative that came out in the fall economic statement and the budget. They say that they care about people; meanwhile, they are voting against everything that would help people, including food. They have decided they do not want to support a national school food program. How do we expect to have debates that matter to people in Canada when we cannot make sure that kids are fed and people live in homes? That is what the Liberals and Conservatives have done. I want to read something that I received from a mental health worker in my riding who reached out to me. She said, “I implore the government to reconsider this expansion...and to engage in a meaningful dialogue with mental health professionals to safeguard the well-being of...Canadians, especially the most vulnerable”. I implore the Liberal government, and the Conservatives who continue to try to stall social programs and initiatives the NDP is working to advance in this House, to take this seriously. We know that, as we stand here in this House today having this debate, we have a toxic drug supply in this country that people are reaching out to because they do not have the medications they can afford as there is not a national pharmacare program in this country.

1242 words

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

Feb/13/24 10:01:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-62

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that many Canadians are struggling right now. I would challenge her to reconsider her participation in the confidence and supply agreement with the government as a result. Maybe we will have to agree to disagree on whether more federal spending on federal bureaucracy, sticking its nose into provincial jurisdiction, is actually going to improve the lives of, for instance, kids who are hungry in schools. I want to ask the member about the bill before us, Bill C-62, and the situation around euthanasia and facilitated suicide in Canada. Because of the challenges we are seeing, with people facing pressure and people being offered or having euthanasia pushed on them, in our last election platform, Conservatives proposed that we would protect the right of patients to choose to receive care in a MAID-free environment. That is, by protecting the conscience rights of physicians and health care institutions, we would preserve the right of patients to choose to be in a hospice or a health care facility where they know they would be offered life-affirming care. There are many Canadians, I think, who want that. They do not appreciate being in a situation where government bureaucrats, health care officials or bureaucrats in other departments are pushing, promoting or encouraging them to choose a path they do not want to take. Does the NDP support our proposal to protect the right of patients to choose to receive care in euthanasia-free or MAID-free spaces?

252 words