Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Gold, in 2022, the number of Canadians who were authorized to receive medical assistance in dying, or MAID, increased by 31%. In Quebec, there was a 46% increase. In a Globe and Mail editorial published last week, we learned that Quebec, sadly, is the MAID world champion. Unsurprisingly, the chair of Quebec’s commission on end-of-life care is worried about borderline or non-compliant cases.

In that context, expanding MAID to include mental illness raises many questions. In its editorial, The Globe and Mail wondered if, considering the statistics and justifications, some requests for MAID were granted only because the applicants were old.

Senator Gold, is the government aware of the problem? Will it tighten some of the criteria, which are much too vague?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Like you, Senator Gold, I believe that the issue of medical assistance in dying is a delicate and difficult one. There are currently some serious doubts about the legislation’s implementation.

Shouldn’t there be a pause on expanding medical assistance in dying to those with mental illness as the sole underlying medical condition? There’s no consensus on the issue. Quebec has rejected the idea.

Why doesn’t the federal government apply the precautionary principle in this specific case in order to slow the momentum and prevent things from getting out of hand?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Gold, the opposition’s question made me think of the debate on medical assistance in dying. I had serious reservations about expanding eligibility to medical assistance in dying to people suffering from mental illness only.

In the past few weeks and days, people have been speaking out against this change, which is set to take effect in mid-March. Some are saying that we are not ready, and it’s not just anybody.

[English]

It includes the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada, which includes the heads of psychiatry departments at all 17 medical schools.

[Translation]

Are you going to postpone the implementation of this change?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Gold, my question is about the conflict between Minister Duclos and the provinces over health transfers. Health is a provincial responsibility, which is what makes this impasse so frustrating. This is not shared jurisdiction.

The nub of the problem seems to be the federal government’s desire to attach certain conditions to the transfers so that everyone works toward building “a world-class health data system.” We already have the Canadian Institute for Health Information, a not-for-profit organization whose board of directors includes a Health Canada deputy minister, an official from Statistics Canada and officials from the provincial health care systems.

Why is the government trying to reinvent the wheel and add another layer of bureaucracy rather than speedily transferring its fair share to the provinces?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I agree with you on the issue of sharing data. However, we already have the Canadian Institute for Health Information, which involves the provinces and the federal government. I understand what the government wants to create, according to the expert advisory group that it established, and I will quote what this new organization is supposed to be so that you can properly understand my question:

Implementation . . . would be advised by a competency-based Health Information Stewardship Council (Council) and facilitated by one or more representative Learning Health System Table(s) (LHS Table(s)), accountable to the Federal/Provincial/Territorial (FPT) Conference of Deputy Ministers of Health. . . .

The LHS Table(s) would work with the Council to establish integrated roadmaps to implement the learning health system and secure investment . . . .

Senator Gold, my question is simple. Why does the government prefer to create a new organization that it describes with such administrative gibberish rather than using an existing organization that has a clear and functional mandate?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I have a question for the Government Representative in the Senate, Senator Marc Gold. Since the discovery of the Omicron variant, the federal government has faced a barrage of criticism for denying entry to Canada to citizens of 10 African countries, even as the variant was spreading in Europe and the United States. In particular, I’m baffled that Canada is systematically refusing to accept tests from all of these African countries, including South Africa, whose large-scale testing expertise is equal or superior to our own.

Canada is the only G7 country to demand third-country testing. How does the government explain these decisions that seem to have no scientific basis and that look very much like an arbitrary and discriminatory policy?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I am surprised that you are talking about following international guidelines, considering the World Health Organization has criticized Canada for refusing to accept these tests.

It seems to me that if the government is rejecting tests from 10 countries, including South Africa, it must suspect that the tests are defective, falsified or easy to circumvent.

Can the government provide us with the data it used to come to that conclusion, since that could help us and other countries too?