//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88567RachelBendayanRachel-BendayanOutremontLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BendayanRachel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 10InterventionMs. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade, Lib.): (1430)[Translation]Mr. Chair, the COVID-19 pandemic is the worst public health crisis we have seen in generations. It is a major threat to the well-being and prosperity of Canadians and people around the world. As a nation, we have done an amazing job of banding together from coast to coast to coast over the past few months to collectively address this unprecedented challenge.Canada's intrinsic spirit can be seen in our essential and front-line workers and their staunch dedication to their communities. We owe them our deepest gratitude and, in some cases, our lives. We must also do our best to honour the many unsung heroes of these times.Today, I am proud to shine a light on the innovative, tireless efforts of Canadian health care scientists and the important role that research plays in our response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Canada is lucky enough to have produced some brilliant minds, valuable assets that are sometimes underestimated.In Quebec, in Montreal, I am thinking of all the researchers and scientists at the University of Montreal, McGill University, the Montreal Heart Institute, CHUM, Sainte-Justine Hospital and many others, who are working every day to develop innovative solutions for keeping everyone healthy.[English]Before this crisis, it is possible that we may have taken for granted our medical researchers who so often toil behind the scenes, but no longer. When the threat of COVID-19 first bore upon us, Canada's health research community stepped up without hesitation when we needed it most, and Canadians are forever grateful. Even before the first cases were diagnosed in Canada, our government engaged with academic, industry, provincial and international partners to swiftly implement a research response to the pandemic. In February, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research was the first agency globally to launch an open call for COVID-19 research. Working closely with federal and provincial partners, the institutes sought to accelerate the development, testing and implementation of medical and social countermeasures to mitigate the rapid spread of COVID-19. Within a few short weeks of the initial launch, our Canadian Institutes of Health Research awarded peer-reviewed grants to 100 meritorious Canadian projects, a process that normally takes over a year.Since then, bolstered by the $1.1-billion national medical research strategy that our government announced through our Prime Minister in April, the CIHR has already committed approximately $170 million and leveraged $25 million in partner funds for research on COVID-19. This very impressive outcome is a testament to the calibre of our health scientists and their commitment to protecting and improving the health of Canadians. I am pleased to report that coordinated investment and mobilization through our Canadian Institutes of Health Research and other federal partners is advancing a broad and balanced portfolio of COVID-19 research.[Translation]We are advancing knowledge in fundamental research, new clinical guidelines and the assessment of the expected and unexpected effects of public health measures. We are advancing research aligned with Canadian and international priorities in the fields of therapeutics, transmission dynamics, diagnostics, public health measures and more. We are supporting clinical trials across Canada, as they are the best mechanism for offering Canadians experimental treatments while ensuring effectiveness. We are fast-tracking collaborative efforts to develop a made-in-Canada vaccine.(1435)[English]Federal investment through our Canadian Institutes of Health Research is enabling leading vaccine centres in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia to join forces and pool their expertise and resources. To date, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research's COVID-19 rapid research competitions have awarded funding to 14 promising vaccine development studies. These investments complement the significant federal investment in vaccine research through Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada's strategic innovation fund. We are also fostering critical partnerships between academia and the medical industry for vaccine development. [Translation]The work that is being done on the ground is absolutely incredible. A Quebec company called Medicago is using its technology platform to develop antibodies against the virus in co-operation with Laval University. Of course, the goal of this research is to protect the health of Canadians. We need to ensure that we are putting enough focus on the Canadian context and the specific needs of various populations. That means investing in strategic, targeted research to help our most vulnerable groups.[English]In addition to increasing anxiety about our health and safety, this pandemic has disrupted many aspects of our personal lives. Job insecurity, isolation and the loss of a loved one all have significant impacts on our mental health. To address this, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research is leading an initiative to provide urgent data to support decision-making on mental health responses to this pandemic. Guided by an external expert advisory panel, the initiative will inform the rapid deployment of psychological supports for mental health and substance use. I am very happy to report that in the month of June a preliminary body of rapid knowledge syntheses was shared with decision-makers and partners within just 30 days of the funding allocation. These reports synthesize current evidence on mental health and substance use services, delivery guidelines and practices, and related issues placed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.Another very critical area of study pertains to the sex differences in the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and associated immune responses. A government-funded team has already published results highlighting how different sex responses and the mechanisms behind them may help inform novel therapeutic approaches to COVID-19.[Translation]Research efforts are also focused on Canadian seniors. As we saw in many provinces, Canada's aging population is particularly vulnerable to the pandemic, as are residents of long-term care facilities, such as Quebec's CHSLDs.A team funded by the Dalhousie University research institute recently published a paper on the impact of the virus on these care facilities, which proposed that biomarkers could help predict disease severity and explain why some residents are more severely affected than others.Research on indigenous health also remains a priority for our government. We know that Canada's indigenous people were disproportionately affected by the pandemic. The COVID-19 response lacked culturally appropriate, distinctions-based interventions grounded in sound evidence and indigenous knowledge. Consequently, we created a funding opportunity to address these deficiencies through bold and innovative strengths-based, solution-focused research led by the community.(1440)[English]While our foremost priority is the health of Canadians, we must recognize that a virus knows no borders. This is a global threat that requires a collaborative global response. This is why we are working in close concert with international partners, such as the World Health Organization, the Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness and others. Through our international engagement in scientific research, we can leverage every opportunity to bring innovations home to Canadians while promoting homegrown expertise and leadership.It is also extremely important to have evidence-based policy. As we work diligently to protect Canadians, we continue to base our decisions on the evolving body of evidence that exists in the research community, and we continue to learn more about the virus every day. We are connecting policy-making with science, for instance, through knowledge mobilization activities, and with supports for COVID-19 vaccine and therapeutic task forces.Investments in health research and in our researchers ultimately pays dividends in saved lives. We are heartened by the remarkable dedication and talent of our scientists, and our government has acknowledged its obligation to sustain Canada's research excellence. This means supporting our researchers now and into the post-pandemic recovery. I invite the members of this House to join me in recognizing the invaluable efforts of Canada's research community.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeCOVID-19Drug use and abuseGovernment Business No. 10Indigenous peoplesLong-term careMedical researchMental healthPandemicSenior citizensTake-note debates62544896254490BardishChaggerHon.WaterlooMichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 9InterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon (Kanata—Carleton, Lib.): (1405)[English]Mr. Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic has changed how we live, how we work, how we interact with other people. Over the past six months, the pandemic has taken an especially heavy toll on Canadians who are members of vulnerable populations. We have learned that COVID most negatively impacts our most vulnerable—seniors, people experiencing homelessness, Canadians with disabilities, racialized Canadians, persons who use substances, and persons with mental health challenges—along with those who work to support them. As restrictive public health measures are lifted and our economy reopens, we must remember there are vulnerable people in our communities, as well as those who support them, who will continue to need our help in order to stay healthy.Our government is responding to these needs through funding provided to the provinces and territories under the safe restart agreement, which was just announced by the first ministers on July 16. The agreement is far-reaching in its intent and scope. The $19-billion commitment will help provinces and territories, which have had to respond to COVID-19 in unique ways and have already made major investments, and will continue to do so, in critical areas, including health care and vulnerable populations. It includes funding over the next six to eight months to support capacity in health care services, procurement of personal protective equipment and support for Canadians facing challenges related to mental health, harmful substances or homelessness.The funding will also support infection prevention and control measures to protect vulnerable populations, including residents at long-term care facilities and those requiring home care. This money will complement the Public Health Agency of Canada's ongoing efforts to provide guidance to health care providers, facility directors and administrators on resident care within long-term care homes.Funding provided under the safe restart agreement will also be used to support other vulnerable populations, such as homeless Canadians and those living in remote or isolated communities. The agreement is an example of the extraordinary federal-provincial-territorial collaboration that has characterized our collective response to this pandemic. It is an indication of our deep and ongoing commitment to protect the health and safety of all Canadians.The safe restart agreement is the latest in a series of actions that our government has taken to support vulnerable populations throughout this crisis. Access to support or prevention programs by those fleeing family and gender-based violence has become more difficult in the context of community lockdowns and social distancing practices. In recognition of this, our government has announced new initiatives to help reduce the impacts of abuse and violence within vulnerable families. A $7.5-million investment has been made in the Kids Help Phone to help support mental health and crisis support for children and youth, an acknowledgement that without school, children may be particularly at risk. There is also $50 million in new funding being provided through the Reaching Home program to women's shelters and sexual assault centres, including $26 million to women's shelters across Canada to distribute to shelters right across the country, $4 million to the Canadian Women's Foundation to distribute to sexual assault centres, and $10 million to support Indigenous Services Canada's existing network of 46 emergency shelters on reserve and in the Yukon.These measures will complement other economic and financial measures to assist vulnerable individuals and families through this crisis, including the enhancement of the Canada child benefit and support for the charitable sector.Our government also recognizes the significant and unique challenges faced by black Canadians and other racialized populations during the COVID-19 pandemic. (1410)As the crisis has unfolded across the country, it has become clear that we need more information on certain groups at higher risk of exposure to COVID-19. As a key social determinant of health that can affect an individual's access and willingness to seek medical care, racism is a public health issue.Canadians who, before the pandemic, were at greater risk of poor health owing to systemic discrimination are likely to be at greater risk of suffering COVID-19's direct and indirect consequences. Given this, the Public Health Agency of Canada and partners are undertaking a number of activities to improve Canada's knowledge on the impact of COVID-19 on racialized communities.Canada has recently established a new national COVID-19 dataset, approved by Canada's special advisory committee on COVID-19. This dataset includes race or ethnicity as a key variable to be collected in the national COVID-19 case report form, which is used by the provincial and territorial governments to report COVID-19 cases to the Public Health Agency of Canada. Until now, with the exception of a section for identifying and classifying cases as indigenous, data on these variables was not collected. Thus, this new dataset represents an important advance in Canada's ability to track the relationship between COVID-19 and race or ethnicity. However, it may take some time for all jurisdictions to be able to collect this data.The mental health impacts of systemic discrimination can also have negative implications for physical health. Our government is working to advance knowledge of the intersections between the mental and physical health of black Canadians through an initiative on promoting health equity called the mental health of black Canadians fund. This fund is supporting projects that generate knowledge, capacity and programs that promote mental health and address its determinants for black Canadians. All funded projects are led by black Canadian experts or organizations, and they are informed by the mental health of black Canadians working group, comprising experts in research, practice and policy from diverse black communities right across the country. Funding recipients have demonstrated great resiliency during the COVID-19 pandemic and are working to continue planned activities in the pandemic context.We also recognize that public health measures have taken their toll on the mental health of Canadians, with feelings of isolation, lack of access to usual support networks and living in fear of the uncertainties caused by the pandemic. Targeted mental health initiatives such as this are in addition to the broader supports that have been developed to help Canadians stay healthy and informed during this difficult period. For example, the Wellness Together Canada portal was developed to link Canadians to mental health and substance use supports. As of July 10, more than 283,000 Canadians had accessed the portal.Under COVID-19 and the mental health initiative, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research has also launched, in partnership with four provincial research agencies, a funding opportunity to better understand mental health, including substance use of both individuals and communities due to the pandemic.In parallel with the COVID-19 pandemic, many communities continue to struggle with a second public health crisis, namely the devastating impact of substance abuse and the overdose crisis. The pandemic has exposed people who use drugs to additional barriers when it comes to accessing health and social services. While necessary public health measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19 may sadly also have had unintended consequences, including increased toxicity of the illegal drug supply and reduction in the availability of life-saving services.We have made it easier for people to access the medications they need, such as those necessary for opioid agonist treatment, such as Suboxone and methadone. Pharmacists now have the ability to extend and renew prescriptions. (1415)We are supporting community-based projects across a wide variety of topics and we will continue to do whatever is needed to help and protect Canadians.Black CanadiansChildrenConsideration in a Committee of the WholeCOVID-19Domestic violenceDrug use and abuseFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment Business No. 9Health services accessibilityHome care servicesHomelessness and homelessLong-term careMental healthPandemicRace-based analysisRacial equalityReaching HomeRemote communitiesSafe Restart AgreementSexual assaultSheltersTake-note debatesTransfers to provinces and territories62383776238378AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingJenicaAtwinFredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35389StevenBlaneyHon.Steven-BlaneyBellechasse—Les Etchemins—LévisConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BlaneySteven_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Steven Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC): (1850)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure those listening to us that we have one of the toughest and most effective firearms registration systems in the world. It includes two specific measures.For instance, when people want to acquire a firearm in this country, they must follow mandatory training to possess what is called a non-restricted firearm. If they want to acquire a handgun or a more sophisticated gun, they have to take additional training. I should know, because this measure was introduced in 2014 by the Conservative government of the day, and I was the minister of public safety at the time.We have a registration system that is simple and safe, complete with many guidelines and procedures. It would take too long to explain it all this evening, as the training takes several hours. What I can tell Canadians, however, is that people who own legal firearms in Canada have a lot of rules they must obey. Before taking that training myself, I was a total neophyte. I was very surprised to learn how law-abiding gun owners are. They know that a firearm must be used very carefully. These are often people who enjoy hunting or sport shooting, the two main categories of gun enthusiasts.As I was saying, the system is very simple. There are unrestricted weapons, restricted weapons and prohibited weapons. For the average Canadian, prohibited weapons are automatic weapons, or machine guns. These machine guns include what are known as military assault-type weapons, which have been prohibited in this country since 1979. Canadians can rest assured that in the legal firearms world, automatic weapons and military assault-type weapons are prohibited. No one can own one, in any way, shape or form. This is what led the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, a credible public safety agency, to declare that Canada has adequate laws and that it is perfectly legitimate to own firearms. Furthermore, the former commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, Chris Lewis, who can be seen on English TV and who is an analyst on CTV, said that instead of targeting law-abiding gun owners, the government should deal effectively with the criminals who do not obey our existing laws. I mentioned two police organizations during my four-minute speech because the current Liberal Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is a former top cop. That makes me wonder why he did not heed the advice of his fellow officers.Last week, he randomly and arbitrarily classified 1,600 firearms based on purely subjective criteria. One of my colleagues put it this way: Adding a skirt and spoiler combo to a Honda Civic does not make it a Formula 1 car. That is kind of what the minister is trying to do. He is using aesthetic and subjective criteria to classify firearms, and that is penalizing hundreds of thousands of honest citizens. He says he plans to buy back those firearms, which could cost a fortune and penalize what is clearly a highly legitimate industry, the recreation and tourism industry. Why is the government not heeding the police's advice to go after illegal weapons, criminals and street gangs? Why is it going after scrupulously law-abiding people who are even more safety-oriented than the general population?Adjournment ProceedingsCrime and criminalityFirearms permitsMental health61698656169866616986761698686169869616987061698716169872AnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—NepeanKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1855)[English]Mr. Speaker, the issue of firearms has been hotly debated for many years in the House of Commons. In the early nineties I was a member of the Manitoba legislative assembly, and Ottawa was debating the issue of firearms. The Conservative approach is to talk about law-abiding firearms owners. If the Government of Canada, or Liberals, New Democrats, Green Party and possibly the Bloc, propose anything that deals with any form of controls or red flags, Conservatives say the government is attacking those law-abiding firearms owners. It is unfortunate.I have had many discussions over the years with individuals who are law-abiding firearms owners. I do not believe that what the government is advocating is irresponsible in any fashion. We have demonstrated a willingness to work with other jurisdictions, particularly municipalities. We are having discussions at different levels of government, listening to the different stakeholders and, for a majority of the political entities inside the House of Commons, we are moving forward on a very important issue.The Conservative Party seems to want to take a hard-right approach by saying any change is bad. I was pleased when the member made reference to the fact that, while he was a minister, the Conservatives brought in some legislation. That is something that Conservative MPs do not talk about very much. I was pleased that the member made reference to the legislation, because those mandatory training programs are critically important. A good number of law-abiding firearms owners support having progressive actions taken on the issue of firearms.I spoke with a law enforcement officer, and he talked about toy guns. Some toy guns that look like assault-type weapons have an orange cap identifying them as toys. The officer said it would be possible to spray paint these caps black and have them look very convincing.The actions the government is taking are not on a whim. They are working and listening to what Canadians want the government to do. They want to see some action on this important file. It is about safety. It is about making our communities a better place. It is about working with others.I would invite the Conservative Party to get on board and be part of the broader coalition that is looking to make our communities better places while still respecting law-abiding firearms owners.Adjournment ProceedingsCrime and criminalityFirearms permitsMental health616987361698746169875616987661698776169878StevenBlaneyHon.Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—LévisStevenBlaneyHon.Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35389StevenBlaneyHon.Steven-BlaneyBellechasse—Les Etchemins—LévisConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BlaneySteven_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Steven Blaney: (1900)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that we should make our communities safer. That was our slogan in 2006.I agree with him that firearms owners, whether they are sport shooters or hunters, are law-abiding citizens. Why go after and harass them with costly and ineffective measures instead of examining the real problem of street gangs? When will the government put in place measures to deal with street gangs and illegal firearms?We will support the government. We even have proposals, such as strengthening the capacity of the CBSA at the border, putting in place a better information exchange system for police services and establishing harsher sentences for the possession of illegal firearms. We have proposals, but the Liberals' actions are designed to pander to the ill-informed for purely electoral and partisan reasons. They are intent on making hunters second-class citizens.We will be there to represent and defend them.Adjournment ProceedingsCrime and criminalityFirearms permitsMental health616987961698806169881616988261698836169884KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1900)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is just not true. Our government recognizes that the vast majority of firearm owners are conscientious and law-abiding, and we have tremendous respect for them. However, when guns get into the hands of criminals with violent intent, the results can be tragic.We also intend to take further action to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands by strengthening safe storage laws and continuing to build a national system that will allow for the monitoring of bulk firearm purchases. The issue of gun and gang violence is complex and consistently evolving. It requires collaboration in partnership with all levels of government, law enforcement and community groups to get to the root of the problem and intervening where we know it will make a difference. That is why the government has made unprecedented investments to support prevention, gang exiting and outreach and awareness programming through initiatives to take action on gun and gang violence. We are investing $327.6 million to give police and prosecutors new resources and tools to fight gang-related violence and address gun smuggling.I see the time is up, but I have appreciated, as always, the opportunity to say a few words.Adjournment ProceedingsCrime and criminalityFirearms permitsMental health6169885616988661698876169888StevenBlaneyHon.Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—LévisBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105221LindsayMathyssenLindsay-MathyssenLondon—FanshaweNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MathyssenLindsay_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanadian Dairy Commission ActInterventionMs. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, before I speak to the bill, I have sad news to announce to the House. During National Nursing Week in London, my hometown and a town that I represent, Brian Beattie, a registered nurse who worked in a retirement village, died of COVID-19. He was the first registered nurse in Ontario to die of COVID-19. Brian is remembered as a dedicated nurse who loved his job and considered the residents in his care like his other family. My thoughts and deepest condolences go out to Brian's family and friends.I want to sincerely thank front-line health care workers, who literally put their lives on the line to take care of others and take care of our families.It is often hard to switch gears in these circumstances, but today I am pleased to speak to Bill C-16, an act to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission Act. The New Democrats are relieved to see this legislation finally come forward and are happy to support it.I want to acknowledge the great work done by my colleague, the MP for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, the NDP's agricultural critic. He could not be here today, as he lives fairly far away, but his work on behalf of farmers across the country is greatly appreciated, despite his absence.The New Democrats believe that increasing the buyback limit that dairy processors have with the Canadian Dairy Commission from $300 million to $500 million, allowing this Crown corporation to purchase more surplus butter and cheese and helping processors with cash flow issues until the market stabilizes again will provide some help to dairy farmers and processors so they can weather the COVID-19 pandemic. These actions are ones we have pushed for. We know they will start to help the sector at this unprecedented time of need.Because of the losses in liquid milk sales to restaurants and other retail sectors due to COVID-19 shutdowns in the sector, producers and processors need assistance. Of course, this help is late. I have heard from a lot of farming families in the area that surrounds my riding who have been worried for months. The uncertainty and stress caused by this pandemic have had a detrimental impact on everyone, especially farmers, so I am glad that we are here today to support this plan.Before I get into truly addressing some details regarding this legislation and the supports that are much needed for our agricultural sector and dairy sector, I will speak to some of the key issues that women working in the agricultural sector sometimes face, issues that have been long-standing but exacerbated by this pandemic.According to the United Nations, “With the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, even the limited gains made in the past decades are at risk of being rolled back.” The Canadian Human Rights Commission has echoed this statement, saying, “These disproportionate impacts could have long-term and far reaching consequences.” As the Canadian Women's Foundation notes, “The pandemic circumstances intensify inequalities related to gender, and other factors, such as economic status, race, culture, language, and other intersecting elements of our identities.”The lack of access to services is felt by women nationwide, but rural women or women living in smaller towns are especially hit hard by the issue of the provision of services, simply because of their location or gender. Rural women have to travel long distances to get the help they need. We know women have felt the impact of this pandemic at disproportionate rates, and when they work in the agricultural sector, they often live in rural and remote areas. Their access to services is therefore dramatically reduced.This is why the announcement last week that Greyhound is suspending its bus service operations has raised many flags with women's organizations, as the ridership of these services is 60% women and Greyhound is used by many trying to get to work. I will continue to call on the government to help people in my riding of London—Fanshawe and others across southwestern Ontario who rely on the inner-city bus industry. Travel, of course, is a necessity of life in rural Canada, and every community in Canada should be able to count on reliable transit to connect people to their jobs, health care services, schools and family members.Connectivity in person during this time is obviously limited, which for so many has put a great deal of emphasis on virtual connectivity. Again, this pandemic has exacerbated many of the failures within our infrastructure for farmers and people living in rural and remote areas across this country. There are issues that consecutive governments have ignored for far too long.Women, and in particular women living in rural Canada, too often feel isolated, and this is compounded by their inability to access or afford a stable Internet connection or cellphone service. It is so important to physically distance right now, but social isolation must be avoided. I have heard from so many women who say they miss their families and their grandkids, the hugs and support they provide.(1620)In particular, I want to address the needs of women who need access to supports from government programs for mental health support and domestic violence hotlines. Those are just some examples. If they do not have that connectivity to online supports, they are left in further, more devastating isolation. The New Democrats' vision of Canada is one of equality, balance and fairness, a country where women's organizations have stable funding so that women can access the support and advocacy they need, and where women have the tools that they need to access those services in their communities, whether urban, suburban, rural or remote. Shelters across Canada have faced large expenses trying to adapt themselves to meet public health physical distancing requirements and to alter programs to deal with the new reality of a COVID-impacted world. However, without the necessary core funding that many shelters and organizations need, these supports cannot exist. Core funding has not been provided by the federal government for too many years, and these organizations cannot use the project-based funding to deal with this crisis situation. Too many fundraising events have been cancelled due to COVID, so another source of income for community-based support services that women need has been cut. This, of course, is a serious financial crisis for the not-for-profit and charitable sectors. This crisis began long before COVID-19, and if things do not change it is one that will continue well past this pandemic.I want to specifically highlight some of the stresses that are put on rural women and women who work in Canada's agricultural industry. Women are leaders in this sector, but I do not believe the government has done a good enough job of closing the pay equity gap and ensuring that women have access to affordable child care and to education. I know that although the number of women is slowly growing in the agricultural sector, many barriers still exist. A significant barrier to most people farming, especially to women, is the large costs associated: the cost of farmland, the cost of equipment, the labour challenges. This pandemic, again, has only exacerbated the difficulties that farmers in the dairy industry face.Before I became an MP, I was a parliamentary staffer and had the great honour of working with the past international trade critic, Tracey Ramsey. Because of this incredible work, I was able to meet and work with amazing people in our agricultural sector, including in the dairy sector. Many people know that in the renegotiated NAFTA, Canada threw our dairy farmers under the bus to appease the U.S. The U.S. has now gained 3.59% access to our dairy market on top of the concessions that were in the other two Conservative-negotiated, Liberal-signed trade deals, the CPTPP and CETA, that bring the total loss to 8.4% of market share. That translates into 800 million litres of milk that will be permanently removed from our farms. I cannot imagine any other sector from which any government would dare cut almost 10% of our market share.These are hard-working families across the country who take so much pride in producing top-quality milk for our communities. I do not know how much more dairy farmers can bear. Once again, I come to the point that because of decisions by consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments that have hurt our supply-managed dairy industry, this sector has been weakened. It is less resilient from the effects of this pandemic. Like so many other systems that I mentioned before that women, farmers and all Canadians rely upon, we need to reinforce social programs and these market protections, which protect people and protect Canadians.Canadian farmers have benefited from the supply-managed system since the early 1970s. The system sets the prices and creates stability for dairy, egg and poultry producers. Supply management has proven to be an effective model that equalizes the benefits of dairy production across consumers, farmers and processors, and it stabilizes the industry against price shocks or over supply. During the negotiations of CUSMA, the Liberal government, every day, repeated its rhetoric that it would preserve and protect our supply-managed sectors, but protecting it meant not allowing pieces of it to be negotiated away. There are three pillars of supply management: import control, pricing mechanisms, and production. In production, we have the quota system in Canada. We make sure that we are only making as much as the market demands. What is being thrown away in every single trade agreement signed by the current government is the pillar of import control. Another key concern in allowing American milk into the Canadian market is that this product contains bovine growth hormone, created by Monsanto and used by American dairy farmers to increase milk production. There are no studies on the effect of this hormone on human health. I am so relieved when I buy milk and I see the little blue cow on the package, knowing that I am supporting Canadian dairy farmers and knowing that my milk is healthy and safe. I know what is in it, and therein lies the extraordinary value of our dairy sector and why we need to fight to protect it.(1625)To add even more insult to injury, after selling out our dairy farmers in CUSMA, the government still has not provided the financial compensation it promised to support those same farmers. Ironically, this would not be necessary if the Liberals had actually protected supply management like they said they would, and we would not have had a surplus of American milk flooding Canadian borders, leading to the current Canadian supply glut, necessitating the recent dumping of 30 million litres of liquid milk.Also causing harm to dairy farmers is the Canada Day start for the new NAFTA, which is only a few more weeks away, when those market concessions will hit our sector hard. This is another reason it was so vital that the NDP and my colleague, the MP for Elmwood—Transcona, negotiated with this government on future trade deals being negotiated in a far more consultative and transparent way. We pushed for Parliament to be able, for the first time ever, to view future trade deals in advance of ratification, instead of merely voting yea or nay after the deal is done. That is needed to preserve our food sovereignty and systems like supply management. It is to protect our farmers for future generations and to ensure that should we have these crises or emergencies in the future, we would be able and stable enough to withstand it.Overall, the other measures announced for farmers by this government are not enough to offset the losses Canadian farmers collectively have suffered, nor will they ensure a strong food security system for Canadians. No one in Canada should be worried about where their next meal will come from. Canada's national food policy needs to improve food security by linking producers to the communities worried about having enough affordable food. I live in an incredible area rich in agricultural land. However, farmers are facing significant challenges in southwestern Ontario. As the farm belt gears up for the growing season, the landscape has been radically changed by the COVID-19 virus and the lockdowns and security precautions that it has brought. The closure of the food service industries, with dine-in restaurant doors shut, has forced food producers and processors to adjust to a high demand for retail and direct-to-consumer products. The processing of food is incredibly different for home consumption than from food service, which is causing some significant challenges in our system. Again, although they have been delayed, I am glad we are passing these supports today. With businesses and restaurants closed during the pandemic, the government has finally accepted the NDP's call for the government to buy surplus food to support food producers and help local organizations enhance food security for people in our communities. Canada is a privileged country because of its agricultural diversity, but it still faces many challenges concerning food. In 1976, Canada signed onto the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which includes a right to food. Yet, more than 40 years later, too many Canadians are still having difficulty putting food on their tables. It is well past time for the federal government to live up to its obligations and ensure access to safe, affordable and healthy food.Farmers have been waiting for weeks for this emergency support, and while New Democrats welcome the bill in front us today that would increase the Dairy Commission's credit line, this should have been done weeks ago, and there is still a great amount to do. Instead of investing more to help our agricultural producers during this crisis, the government again has let farmers fall through the cracks. So many are not eligible for support programs. After everything this government has done to dairy farmers, this is the least it can do to support them during this pandemic. Instead of investing more to help our agricultural producers during this crisis, the government is letting them down. Many are still not eligible for support programs. The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed many failings in our systems and social programs. Cracks have been created over many years, and people are falling through those cracks because of the government's consistent cutting and gutting. The undermining of the supports provided by these programs has cost us a great deal now. The question remains, will we continue down a road where we are shortsighted? Will we look only to what will benefit a small group in a short term, or will we now repair the damage done by the cutbacks and decide to further build and strengthen the programs we have? Will we ensure fairness, balance and equality within sectors, including our agricultural sector? Will we value the work of farmers in every sector? Will we value the sourcing of local food? Will we fall back from the belief that globalization and a neoliberal agenda are inevitable or supreme and realize that it is actually through social stability, the strengthening of people and the foundations they stand upon, that will make us thrive? Now is a good time to start to ask these hard questions and to talk about our lives post-COVID. I know what my answer is, and I am willing to do the work involved to achieve something better for everyone. Before I officially conclude, I want to briefly take this opportunity to recognize a very important anniversary. Fifty years ago, almost to the day, members of the Vancouver Women's Caucus travelled to Ottawa with the Abortion Caravan. In 1970, members of the Abortion Caravan marched on Parliament Hill in opposition to the 1969 amendments to the Criminal Code. However, this women's organization knew then that a lack of fair and equal access to proper reproductive rights was putting women's health in danger. (1630)The Abortion Caravan arrived in Ottawa on Mother's Day weekend in 1970, a convoy of Canadian women, over 500 strong, arrived here with coat hangers and a black coffin in tow to demand the legalization of unrestricted access to abortion services for all Canadian women.On May 11, 1970, approximately three dozen women entered the House of Commons, taking their seats in the various galleries circling the chamber. Once seated, the women quietly chained themselves to their seats, listening intently as NDP MP Andrew Brewin asked Minister of Justice John Turner if he would consider reviewing the abortion law. Turner tried to dismiss the matter, but just before 3 p.m., one of the women rose from her seat in the gallery and began reciting the Abortion Caravan's prepared speech, interrupting debate on the floor of the House of Commons. As parliamentary guards approached the woman, a second woman stood up in another area of the gallery and continued to give the speech. One by one, the women rose from their seats, adding their voices to the call for safe and equal access to reproductive rights.The Abortion Caravan brought national attention to this issue. Sadly, women today are still forced to fight for access to health care options. Specifically on this 50th anniversary, I think about those brave women who were part of that caravan and built that movement to ensure that women of my generation have the freedom of choice. I also think of the women in Fredericton today and the fact that the so-called feminist federal government still has done nothing to ensure that the women's clinic in Fredericton is properly and fairly funded to do what is needed to protect the rights women are supposed to have under the Canada Health Act.Like those women 50 years ago, and like MP Brewin, New Democrats will continue to fight for safe and fair reproductive rights. In recognition of this 50th anniversary, I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: “That the House recognize this week marks the 50th anniversary of the Abortion Caravan, commemorates the caravan's important contribution to modernizing Canada's reproductive rights laws and calls upon the government to take further action to increase access to abortion services, including by enforcing the Canada Health Act and ensuring that Clinic 554 in Fredericton is properly and fairly funded.”AbortionAgricultural policyBovine growth hormoneBroadband Internet servicesC-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission ActCanada-United States-Mexico AgreementCanadian Dairy CommissionCity of FrederictonCOVID-19Dairy farmingDairy industryFarming and farmersFood supplyGovernment billsGovernment compensationHealth emergenciesHealth services accessibilityHelp line servicesImportsLeave to propose a motionLoansMental healthMilk and dairy productsMotionsPandemicPublic transitRemote communitiesRural communitiesSecond readingSexual discriminationSheltersStatus of womenSupply managementTrade agreementsUnited States of AmericaViolence against womenWomen6151567AlainTherrienLa PrairieBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/7251LarryMaguireLarry-MaguireBrandon—SourisConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MaguireLarry_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanadian Dairy Commission ActInterventionMr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC): (1740)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague made many good points in her speech. I saw a report published in The Globe and Mail earlier this week by a grain farmer in Alberta, whose name is Mr. Nielsen. He indicated that he got into agriculture because he loved it, not because he thought it would be easy. The dairy industry is certainly not easy, as I pointed out earlier today. Mr. Nielsen also makes a comment that farmers face weather, market volatility and costs of input on a regular basis, but they manage for that as much as they possibly can. The mental health of farmers is something we need to look at too, and I would ask my colleague to comment on that. That article published by The Globe and Mail indicates that 58% of farmers meet the threshold for anxiety and 35% already meet the level of what is classified as depression. Even though they are like that, they love the industry. I was a farmer all my life so I know where they are coming from.Could my colleague expand on that or does she have anything to add?C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission ActCanadian Dairy CommissionDairy industryFarming and farmersGovernment billsLoansMental healthSecond reading6151770615177161517726151773MarilèneGillManicouaganMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanadian Dairy Commission ActInterventionMrs. Marilène Gill: (1745)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. I also thank him for letting me speak about mental health as well.That is of course collateral damage. There are two considerations in our communities. We are talking about agriculture. However, depending on the size of the farm, we know very well that some farmers live a solitary life. It is a huge endeavour that entails many risks, whether it is a dairy, horticultural or grain farm. Farmers experience a great deal of stress and anxiety.As I said earlier, there were flaws in what the government offered as a result of the agreements. There is compensation that has not been paid. We see what is currently happening. There is even more pressure on farmers, whose work is considered essential. The fact that they are considered essential also means that our help is urgently needed.This was also among the demands made by Quebec, the provinces and farmers with respect to mental health. They obviously need support, because these people work hard. I had a spouse who was a farmer, and I saw what a life of farming was all about, with all it demands. I saw the stress, but also the desire, since farmers love what they do. As my colleague said, it is a passion. We need to support them.I want to expand on the topic of rural life. Many rural ridings have high rates of suicide among men, primarily, and among farmers, as we heard earlier. These two aspects combined make this situation even more urgent. I completely agree that we need to support them on this. Obviously, if we want to help them, we need to provide financial support, because that is where the stress comes from.C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission ActCanadian Dairy CommissionDairy industryFarming and farmersGovernment billsLoansMental healthSecond reading615177461517756151776615177761517786151779LarryMaguireBrandon—SourisYvesPerronBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98079DaneLloydDane-LloydSturgeon River—ParklandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LloydDane_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCOVID-19 PandemicInterventionMr. Dane Lloyd: (1440)[English]Mr. Chair, we need to be sure that the government is taking action, particularly on this.Is the government tracking a significant increase in mental health issues and suicides? What actions is it taking to protect Canadians from taking their lives at this particularly stressful time?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeCOVID-19Mental healthPandemicSuicides6120887ChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/84665ChrystiaFreelandHon.Chrystia-FreelandUniversity—RosedaleLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FreelandChrystia_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCOVID-19 PandemicInterventionHon. Chrystia Freeland: (1440)[English]Mr. Chair, that, I am sad to say, is an excellent question. One of the prices we are all seeing right now through this period of physical distancing is that more Canadians are suffering from mental health problems. We are very much focused on it. Health Canada is definitely putting forward some measures to be sure to help people at this time. I also want to encourage individual Canadians to keep doing what they have been doing, which is to help their neighbours, friends and family.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeCOVID-19Mental healthPandemicSuicides612088861208896120890DaneLloydSturgeon River—ParklandDaneLloydSturgeon River—Parkland//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105221LindsayMathyssenLindsay-MathyssenLondon—FanshaweNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MathyssenLindsay_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Pharmacare]InterventionMs. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): (1535)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.In the days before medicare, we saw our neighbours suffer because they could not afford the health care they needed. We saw people lose their homes, their farms and their businesses as they struggled to pay their medical bills. We saw illness destroy entire families. Today, decades later, as we look across the country we see the pain of inaccessible and unaffordable health care once again.Millions of families cannot afford to take the medications they need because they have no employer-provided drug coverage. The number of uninsured people forced to skip their medications is growing as more people work on contract, are self-employed or have jobs that just do not come with health benefits. Too many seniors are putting their health at risk because they do not have job coverage and cannot afford to pay out of pocket. One in five Canadians either has no prescription drug coverage at all or has inadequate coverage for medication needs. That is 7.5 million people.I met one gentleman in my riding of London—Fanshawe who really highlighted this issue for me. He was injured on the job. Thankfully his employer had health benefits that would cover some of his recovery. He wanted and needed to get back to work even though he was not well enough, because he knew that he was up against the clock and his employer's health benefits would soon run out. He would have to make the impossible choice of going back to work, further risking his health and the health and safety of others, or paying out of pocket with money he just did not have, throwing himself into deeper poverty.Sadly, this story is not anything new. That is why on clinical, ethical and economic grounds universal public drug coverage has been recommended by commissions, committees and advisory councils dating as far back as the 1940s. Health policy experts are clear: A U.S.-style, private patchwork approach will cost more and deliver inferior access to prescription drugs. It is why New Democrats have always understood that health care must be a right in Canada, not a privilege. We have been calling for universal public drug coverage since our founding convention in 1961.Today, Canada is the only wealthy country in the world with a universal health care system that lacks universal prescription insurance coverage. We pay the third-highest prices for drugs in the world and have to deal with a patchwork of programs and coverage, if we are lucky enough to have coverage at all.For 10 years, instead of addressing the growing costs of drug coverage, the Conservatives made the problem worse by reducing health care funding to the provinces and undermining efforts towards a national approach to pharmaceutical pricing. Now, the Liberal government has spent four years stalling, promising lower drug costs but delivering delays and more of the same piecemeal system that is failing Canadians and costing us more.We see the direct cost of this inaction in our hospitals and our communities. With people unable to get the medicine they need, they turn to our emergency rooms. When patients cannot afford their prescription drugs, they access provincial and territorial health systems more often as their conditions deteriorate. In 2016, about 303,000 Canadians had additional doctor visits, about 93,000 sought care in the emergency department and 26,000 were admitted to hospital after being forced to forgo prescription medication due to cost.HealthCareCAN, the national voice of health care organizations and hospitals across Canada, estimates that between 5.4% and 6.5% of hospital admissions in Canada are the result of cost-related non-adherence to prescription medication, resulting in costs of approximately $1.6 billion per year.One in five Canadian households reports a family member who, in the past year, has not taken a prescription medication due to its cost. Nearly three million Canadians per year are unable to afford one or more of their prescription drugs. With a system that still struggles with mental health supports, we see people on the streets and in our correctional systems when what they really need is help. In London, Victoria Hospital of the London Health Sciences Centre has a significant overcapacity problem, with more mental health patients than beds for 179 of the last 181 days. The hospital's average capacity on any given night was around 111%.We see the desperate need for a national, single-payer, universal pharmacare program. I believe my colleagues across the way believe that we need one too. I am so glad to hear that they will be supporting our motion today. Why would Liberals keep promising to bring forward a national pharmacare program for the last 23 years? Why would Liberals propose study after study, after commission, after advisory committee if they did not see a need for pharmacare? That is, unless they are constantly studying the program to make it look like they are considering the issue and have no intention of implementing it. This is my great fear.(1540)Liberals have been promising pharmacare since 1997, but I wonder how long they have been making promises to big pharmaceutical and insurance companies to secure their skyrocketing profits. We know that drug costs have increased every year the Liberals have been in power since 2015, and in that same time the Liberals have met with companies from the pharmaceutical and insurance industries more than 875 times. New Democrats have a clear plan on how to implement pharmacare. In fact, our plan is laid out by the Liberals' own Hoskins report. We are so committed to ensuring this happens that, immediately following the last election, the NDP began working to draft a framework to make a universal, comprehensive and public pharmacare program a reality. It was the first private member's bill that my colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, put forward and I thank him so much for his hard work. I thank my colleague, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, for the hard work he has done on this file, not only in putting forward this motion today but for his work on the health committee in the last Parliament.The NDP's national pharmacare act is modelled after the Canada Health Act, again as recommended in the report of former Ontario Liberal health minister Hoskins. After all the studies and commissions, if we read the report, it lays out a very clear path on how to implement pharmacare. A plan should follow the same principles that are the bedrock of our public health care system: universality, comprehensiveness, accessibility, portability and public administration.What also comes out of the endless reports and studies is that, beyond the positive impacts on health and fighting poverty, pharmacare will save Canadians and businesses money. Universal, comprehensive and public pharmacare will reduce annual system-wide spending on prescription drugs by $5 billion through the negotiation of lower drug prices, increased generic substitution and use of biosimilars and other shifts in prescribing toward lower-cost therapies. It will stimulate our economy by reducing prescription drug costs for businesses and employees by $16.6 billion annually and reduce out-of-pocket costs for families by $6.4 billion, according to that same Hoskins report. When we consider the average median household income in London—Fanshawe is under $60,000 a year, and $30,000 per individual per year, it is well below the Canadian and Ontario average and this would be a huge boost to people in my riding. I think of the many seniors in London—Fanshawe that I have talked to, either on their doorsteps or in my constituency office. They tell me about how the cost of everyday items continues to increase while their incomes remain the same. The cost of drugs continues to be the fastest-growing expense for people and for families. Average drug costs are increasing by 4% every year. On average, Canadian households spend $450 a year on prescription drugs and $550 on private health plan premiums, which is a combined average of $1,000. Private premiums have risen rapidly in recent years, thanks largely to escalating drug prices, and are taking a growing bite out of workers' take-home pay. After decades of delay, we have a historic opportunity in this minority Parliament to finally deliver for Canadians. We can come together and deliver, lifting people up in a real way and at the same time creating a healthier Canada. It is time for this Parliament to have the courage to put forward this program, to strengthen our health care system, strengthen our economy and strengthen our communities.Mental healthOpposition motionsPharmacarePrescription drugsSplitting speaking time60984216098422AnjuDhillonDorval—Lachine—LaSalleKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsHealthInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, GP): (1830)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today as a follow-up to my question on funding for a national framework for mental health. I would like to start today by sharing how mental health has impacted my journey here.I began my career as an educator. One day, a 14-year-old student got into some trouble in class and was sent down to see me. As we talked, it became clear there was a lot going on. I was aware of some social struggles in the friend group and I knew a bit of family history.Suddenly and unforgettably, this student for whom I cared deeply, said the words, “I do not want to live anymore.” The student had the means and the motivation to escape this painful experience. The weight of the suffering hung thick in the air. I did what any human would do under the circumstances. I did my best to stumble through the rest of the conversation with empathy, but I recognized very acutely that my colleagues and I were not equipped to navigate the complexities of these conversations with the youth who trusted us the most. I would spend many hours and resources finding the tools to tackle this crisis, and I wish many other Canadians would also have that opportunity.I am acutely aware of the pain of suicide, as many of us are. We have all lost someone, a cousin, the child of a teammate, a co-worker, a friend, a grandmother. Research shows that approximately 90% of people who die by suicide suffer from mental illness or addiction. Suicide is the second leading cause of death among youth ages 15 to 24. Rates of suicide are three times higher for members of first nations communities than they are for non-indigenous people. Risk factors are directly linked to socio-economic characteristics, including household income, employment status, level of education and family support.I have shared a story. I have shared the data. I would now like to look to the solution. Canadian provinces and territories need financial support from the federal government to ensure they can address the mental health crisis impacting families and communities across the nation. We need to invest in training for professionals across sectors, educators and everyday Canadians to access resources and learning opportunities to support those suffering from mental illness.We need to invest in a timely diagnosis process. Service providers and families need access to early diagnosis to ensure early intervention. We need to invest in a national pharmacare system. Canadians should never have the financial anxiety of needing to choose between buying groceries or life-saving medications. We need to invest in support for sexual assault survivors. This is a massive missing link in this conversation. We need to invest in support for elders, like intergenerational housing, to avoid isolation and loneliness.That is why on February 26, I asked the Minister of Finance if the budget would include funding for a national framework on mental health so the provinces and territories could work together to find solutions to address this crisis. I look forward to hearing the response from the hon. member as to how we might come together to restore hope for Canadians across the country.Adjournment ProceedingsHealth services accessibilityMental health609733660973376097338609733960973406097341609734260973436097344609734560973466097347CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingGudieHutchingsLong Range Mountains//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88292GudieHutchingsGudie-HutchingsLong Range MountainsLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HutchingsGudie_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsHealthInterventionMs. Gudie Hutchings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development, Lib.): (1830)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member first and foremost for sharing her story and for providing the House with this opportunity to speak about mental health.According to Statistics Canada, one in three Canadians will be affected by a mental illness in their lifetime. Mental health is influenced by a number of factors, including life experience and social and economic conditions. Our government recognizes the need for a comprehensive approach to mental health, one that embraces promotion and prevention alongside treatment and recovery.For this reason, we have worked with our partners and stakeholders to put in place community-based programs and initiatives that promote mental health and contribute to the prevention of mental illness. Our government is also committed to increasing the availability of high-quality mental health services for all Canadians. Through budget 2017, we provided provinces and territories with $5 billion over 10 years to improve access to mental health and addiction services. These targeted investments will address specific gaps in the availability of mental health services, including those for children and youth.Allow me to illustrate, through concrete examples, how these investments are expected to directly help Canadians suffering from mental illness. With this funding, in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador we will add new community crisis houses to provide a safe place for people experiencing a mental health crisis. Several models will be explored for these beds, based on the emerging needs of each of the province's regional health authorities.Quebec will improve accommodation and community retention services to provide psychiatric hospitalizations and reduce psychiatric ward stays. The Northwest Territories will contract an itinerant private counselling team that will provide surge capacity assistance to individuals struggling with mental illness through timely crisis supports when local resources are either unavailable or overwhelmed.Saskatchewan will establish residential options that include intensive supports for individuals with serious and persistent mental health issues. With federal funds, Ontario has committed to develop and provide new services in supportive units, such as daily living supports and case management for those living with mental illness, those with addictions, and those who are at risk of becoming homeless.In Ontario, as well as in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia, federal investments will also support other initiatives that integrate mental health and addictions services into supportive housing programs, justice services, and education settings, all of which will have a particular focus on youth. To provide support for those struggling with suicidal thoughts, our government is also investing close to $3 million over five years to support the development of the Canada suicide prevention service through Crisis Services Canada. This service connects people in Canada to confidential 24/7 crisis support and resources through trained responders.Finally, to promote child and youth mental health, our government is also investing $1.1 million in 2019-20, $4.7 million in 2020-21 and $4.9 million from 2021-22 and onwards through the mental health promotion innovation fund. The fund will support the development of new and promising interventions that aim to address the underlying determinants of mental health in children and young people throughout Canada. To sum up, mental health is a priority for the federal government, and we will continue to work with all our partners to make improvements in this area.Adjournment ProceedingsHealth services accessibilityMental health60973486097349609735060973516097352609735360973546097355609735660973576097358609735960973606097361JenicaAtwinFrederictonJenicaAtwinFredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsHealthInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin: (1835)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that really wonderful response. There are lots of great initiatives taking place in Canada. I feel we have come a very long way.I do want to highlight that there are still some missing pieces. Mental health has long been recognized as a fundamental aspect of one's health; however, under our current health regime, the majority of mental health services do not meet the eligibility requirement of “medically necessary”.I feel we need to have another look at this, and that is why I am asking for a national legislation framework. There is a patchwork of provincial and regional initiatives, but I feel we need a more unified approach. I am thinking of a story of a constituent who is searching for their son across provincial lines and is having a lot of difficulty because there is not a lot of collaboration and communication that occurs.I am asking for a national strategy to be looked at and funded by the government.Adjournment ProceedingsHealth services accessibilityMental health6097362609736360973646097365GudieHutchingsLong Range MountainsGudieHutchingsLong Range Mountains//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88292GudieHutchingsGudie-HutchingsLong Range MountainsLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HutchingsGudie_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsHealthInterventionMs. Gudie Hutchings: (1835)[English]Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague is passionate about this issue and I encourage her to reach out and work with all the departments.I am sure the member knows that the provinces determine where most of the federal money given to them goes. That is why we were so adamant in earmarking that money for mental health initiatives.We are committed to a comprehensive approach to mental health, one that embraces promotion, prevention, treatment and recovery. We are investing in a range of culturally appropriate mental health initiatives and programs that take into account social, economic and environmental factors, such as income, housing and education. We are also working with our provincial and territorial partners to improve access to mental health services for Canadians.As mentioned, through our commitment of $5 billion over 10 years in budget 2017, investments have been made in appropriate and cost-effective mental health services for Canadians. We will ensure that the provinces continue to do so. The challenge of addressing mental health issues requires the combined efforts of all levels of government and many stakeholders, as well as all members in this House. Adjournment ProceedingsHealth services accessibilityMental health60973666097367609736860973696097370JenicaAtwinFrederictonPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71323JohnWilliamsonJohn-WilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsonJohn_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodTaxationInterventionMr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): (1200)[English]Madam Speaker, the national revenue minister brought in changes to the disability tax credit in 2017. The government said this was to improve accessibility. Three years later, constituents from my riding with lifelong mental disabilities are still waiting for access. They are still denied eligibility even after providing legitimate medical documentation. One family was even forced to go to tax court before the government conceded that mental health issues are eligible. When will the government stop discriminating against Canadians with mental health disabilities so they can receive this tax credit?Application processDisability tax creditMental healthOral questions607175260717536071754CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingDianeLebouthillierHon.Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88460DianeLebouthillierHon.Diane-LebouthillierGaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-MadeleineLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LebouthillierDiane_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodTaxationInterventionHon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): (1200)[Translation]Madam Speaker, our government is introducing measures to help ensure the long-term financial security and independence of people with disabilities. In 2017, our government reinstated the disability advisory committee, which was dismantled by the Harper Conservatives in 2006. We thank the members of the committee for working hard to make recommendations to the Canada Revenue Agency concerning better support for people with disabilities. Our government is working on implementing most of the recommendations. The report released last spring will inform our future discussions.Application processDisability tax creditMental healthOral questions6071755JohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestGinettePetitpas TaylorHon.Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88910ArifViraniArif-ViraniParkdale—High ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViraniArif_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1035)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to point out four matters and lower the tone a bit. We need to talk about facts as opposed to emotional arguments.My first point is to clarify that depressed individuals are not subject to this regime. We have specifically included a carve out for mental illness as a sole condition.My second point is that the data collection the member seeks is being beefed up by this very bill.My third point is that hyperbole has entered into this debate about people being “killed right away”. The notion of having a written consent witnessed by an independent witness and then the eligibility being verified by two independent practitioners, and that occurring in a matter of minutes or hours, is categorically false. That is not the way the system currently operates.My fourth point is that it is an absolute red herring to raise a case based in Holland, which as has advance directives for ailments such as dementia. We do not have dementia within the penumbra of ailments subject to this regime. We are also not proposing advance directives; we are proposing advance consent.The member has raised, in some instances, concerns about what he perceives to be patients who are suffering or doctors who are acting aggressively. Those are important cases. If the member has cases, he should have those cases brought to the attention of either disciplinary bodies, regulated physicians or to law enforcement, because those should be enforced. In fact, what we have is evidence to the contrary, that doctors are not practising this overly aggressively. In fact, there is a small pool of doctors that—The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.Application processC-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Government billsHealth care systemInformation collectionLiving willsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSecond reading6066439GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1035)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member should know that the last legislation included a good faith exception, that a doctor who did not follow all the rules, but still acted in “good faith” would escape prosecution. Cases have been referred to disciplinary bodies, but there is a limited capacity to actually prosecute people who are, in the case, described as going into a nursing home and taking someone's life, without any consultation with the surrounding staff. These cases raise significant concern.The member says that we should lower the tone and avoid hyperbole and then criticizes me for bringing up specific cases in Canada and in other countries that have similar legal regimes. The government should look at these cases and consider them before moving forward. It is right to bring up the Dutch case, and I acknowledge the differences in the proposed regime in Canada from the Dutch regime. However, I pointed out very specifically that there was no requirement in the existing legislation for the person to be asked in the moment. I would beg the government to introduce that additional requirement for some contemporaneous consultation with the patients. After all, what does it have to lose? There very much is the possibility of someone being killed right away under the proposed legislation.If the parliamentary secretary is so opposed to that characterization of the legislation, then why not leave in some waiting period? If he says that because of all the administrative requirements, inevitably there would be some delay, then leave the waiting period to consider—Application processC-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Government billsHealth care systemInformation collectionLiving willsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSecond reading6066445606644660664476066448ArifViraniParkdale—High ParkBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88984PattyHajduHon.Patty-HajduThunder Bay—Superior NorthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HajduPatty_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionHon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Health, Lib.): (1045)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to address Bill C-7 and to speak to our proposed changes to Canada's medical assistance in dying legislation.(1050)[Translation]The proposed measures respond to the Superior Court of Québec's Truchon decision, in which it ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny access to medical assistance in dying to individuals who meet all the other eligibility criteria but are not near the end of life.[English]In responding to this ruling, the Government of Canada has had the opportunity to consider some additional measures for which there is strong support. That is why we are proposing changes that will help clarify and add precision to Canada's medical assistance in dying legislation.Over the past few months, I have had the honour of listening to many Canadians, and it was important for me as the Minister of Health to hear first-hand what they had to say. My colleagues and I hosted a series of round tables and heard from more than 125 experts, academics, ethicists, doctors, nurse practitioners, members of the disability community, indigenous groups and key stakeholders. I also engaged my provincial and territorial colleagues, and my officials worked closely with their counterparts across the country. In January, I was in Calgary and spoke to Cynthia Clark, who saw her husband through the process of medically assisted death last summer. Her perspective, as well as those of so many others with first-hand experience were invaluable. I also listened to practitioners who have been providing medical assistance in death in a very thoughtful, compassionate way over the last four years. They had a lot to say about what was working well but also about what was not working well.We heard many personal stories like Cynthia's, and they helped shape the changes that we are proposing today. In addition, the feedback received from our online consultation was astounding. In two weeks we had more than 300,000 responses.[Translation]It is clear that certain aspects could be improved in order to facilitate access, protect the vulnerable and respect personal choice.With this bill, I think we have achieved a balanced approach that reflects the best interests of all Canadians.[English]Protecting the safety of vulnerable people while respecting the autonomy of Canadians remains our central objective. That is why the bill proposes a two-track approach to safeguards, based on whether or not a person's death is reasonably foreseeable.Reasonable foreseeability of natural death would no longer be a requirement for determining whether a person can access medical assistance in dying. It would, however, be used to guide practitioners in determining which safeguards to apply. This is consistent with what we heard at the round table meetings.Providers involved in assessing the eligibility of applicants for a medically assisted death told us they have a good understanding of the concept and are comfortable applying it. Under the amended law, they would use reasonable foreseeability of natural death to determine not eligibility, but rather which safeguards would apply.For those whose death is reasonably foreseeable, we would ease some of the pre-existing safeguards. Under the current system, there is a requirement for a 10-day reflection period. We are proposing to eliminate this reflection period. For those who are at the end of their life, the decision to request medical assistance in dying is well considered, and this additional period only serves to prolong suffering unnecessarily.The current system also requires that two independent witnesses confirm that the person who has signed a request for medical assistance in dying is who they claim to be and that no fraud has occurred, such as the forging of someone's signature. During our consultations, we heard that this requirement was a significant barrier for many people at the end of their life.We propose requiring only one witness and allowing this witness to be a paid personal or health care provider. These individuals naturally would be excluded from acting as a witness if they are a beneficiary of the person's will or if they would receive a financial or material benefit from the person's death. Anyone involved in assessing or providing medical assistance in dying would continue to be ineligible to serve as a witness.For those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable, we would create a new, more robust set of safeguards. We think it is important, even while improving access, to ensure that people who are suffering but who are not dying are given full and careful consideration as they assess whether or not to pursue an assisted death.Strengthened safeguards would also serve to protect vulnerable individuals. For example, the bill proposes a minimum period of 90 days for assessing a MAID request in the case of a non-imminent death. This period would allow for exploration, discussion and consideration of options to alleviate suffering by the person seeking medical assistance in dying and with the practitioner.The bill would also require that the person requesting MAID be provided with information on available counselling, mental health supports, disability supports and palliative care as part of the informed consent process.We know that the majority of practitioners are already ensuring that their patients are aware of all of the supports and options that are available to them. This provision underscores the importance of the doctor-patient relationship. It allows for a practitioner and a patient to decide whether medical assistance in dying is the right step and provides sufficient time for the patient to discuss and consider other treatment options, which is crucial for patients weighing this kind of decision. This provision supports fully informed decision-making and individual autonomy. Under the current legislation, those who become incapacitated lose their eligibility for medical assistance in dying because the person must give their consent immediately before the procedure. This means that some individuals deemed eligible for medical assistance in dying have chosen to end their lives earlier than they wanted out of fear of losing the opportunity to receive this service.That is why we are proposing to include a waiver of final consent for persons whose death is reasonably foreseeable and who have been assessed and approved to receive medical assistance in dying. Individuals at the end of their life who risk losing their decision-making capacity before their chosen date would have an avenue to receive MAID without worrying that loss of their decision-making capacity before their chosen date would disqualify them. Support for this amendment is strong among stakeholders, Canadians and health practitioners.Canada has had four years to reflect on the current MAID legislation passed in June 2016, and there are many complex issues that require further study. In December of 2016, the Government of Canada asked the Council of Canadian Academies to conduct independent reviews on three specific types of requests for medical assistance in dying that are currently outside of the scope of the law: requests by mature minors, advance requests and requests where a mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition. The Council of Canadian Academies convened a multidisciplinary panel of 43 experts to review an extensive body of evidence, including Canadian and international academic and policy research.(1055)[Translation]We tabled those reports in Parliament in December 2018. They provide us with a thorough, thoughtful examination of these very difficult subjects. I encourage all members to read those reports as we continue our deliberations on the proposed legislative amendments and the parliamentary review that will be conducted later this year.[English]There is agreement among experts that allowing advance requests for people with illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease well before they would otherwise be deemed eligible is very complex and will require careful consideration and consultation before it could be included in legislation.During the round tables I heard directly from health care providers who expressed discomfort because they have seen patients who, as their position progressed, might not have the same desire for medical assistance in dying as when they were first diagnosed. The Council of Canadian Academies' expert panel report on advance requests came to the same conclusion.At the same time, we know that many Canadians have expressed an interest in advance requests so that they could have the comfort of knowing that they could avoid extreme suffering at some future date. For all these reasons, we believe this issue deserves deeper examination through parliamentary review. That will be our opportunity to tackle questions that are profound and difficult to answer, even for practitioners who have been providing this service over the past four years.The proposed changes to the medical assistance in dying legislation would exclude persons if mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition.[Translation]This does not mean that people with mental illness are ineligible; it means that mental illness cannot be the sole underlying condition. This is another complex aspect that warrants a more thorough discussion.[English]Since the federal legislation came into force in 2016, Health Canada has released four federal interim reports that provide more information on how the legislation is being implemented across the country.In November 2018, we implemented regulations that resulted in the creation of a permanent monitoring regime that sets out obligations for reporting on medical assistance in dying cases by doctors, nurse practitioners and pharmacists. The first monitoring report under these regulations is expected to be released in spring 2020.Since MAID legislation was enacted in 2016, more than 13,000 Canadians have chosen this option of a medically assisted death. This is not unexpected. We have seen a gradual increase in the numbers over the last three years. The number of MAID deaths in Canada, slightly under 2% of all deaths, is in line with international regimes. The increasing use of MAID is largely a result of enhanced awareness of it as a legal option and greater acceptance by Canadians.The federal government recognizes that public reporting is critical to ensuring transparency and also to ensuring public trust in the legislation. That is why we are proposing changes to expand data collection to help provide a more complete picture of medical assistance in dying in Canada.Under the current legislation, only practitioners who receive a written request for MAID and pharmacists who dispense a MAID substance are required to provide information, but it has become clear that capturing information based solely on written requests for MAID received by physicians and nurse practitioners has resulted in an incomplete picture on who is requesting MAID across the country, and why.The amended legislation would authorize new regulations to be developed in partnership with provinces and territories to allow for the collection of data on all assessments for MAID, and this would include those undertaken by other health professionals on the care team. It also clearly aligns with the original intent of the legislation to collect information on all requests for, and cases of, MAID in Canada.I think we can agree that Canadians with life-limiting illnesses deserve the best quality of life possible as they approach the end of their lives. Palliative care and end-of-life care provide patients with relief from the pain and distress associated with a life-threatening illness. Supporting home care and palliative care is a key priority in our ongoing efforts to improve our health care system.Through budget 2017, we made historic new investments in health care to improve access to mental health and addiction services, as well as home and community care, including palliative care. To further support access to palliative care across the country, the government worked closely with provinces, territories, and stakeholders to develop the framework on palliative care in Canada, which we tabled in Parliament in 2018. We have released an action plan to support each of the priority areas identified in the framework.I want to assure the House that the proposed bill responds to concerns identified by practitioners and experts through the round table discussions.(1100)[Translation]I will continue to work closely with the provinces, territories and key partners to support the implementation of the proposed legislative amendments, if they pass in Parliament. [English]This includes working with provinces, territories, health system partners and regulatory bodies to support best practices and information sharing on clinical guidance and other aspects of implementation, which includes training and retrospective reviews.I have a great deal of respect for the practitioners who have been providing this service over the last four years with immense diligence and a huge amount of compassion. Their experiences have helped us craft legislation that much better meets the needs of Canadians. This law is constructed in a way that supports autonomy, but it includes the flexibility to allow a practitioner and a patient to work more closely together.Medical assistance in dying is a complex and deeply personal issue. In tabling these changes, our government has considered carefully the need for personal autonomy and the protection of vulnerable people.There is strong public support for change, and I believe we have found an approach that reflects the best interests of all Canadians. I urge all members of the House to support the proposed changes.Alzheimer diseaseApplication processC-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Capacity of consent for careCaregivers and health care professionalsCouncil of Canadian AcademiesExpert panelsFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsHealth care systemInformation collectionLiving willsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthOversight mechanismPalliative carePublic consultationSecond readingTerminal illnessesTruchon v. Attorney General of Canada60665036066504GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanTamaraJansenCloverdale—Langley City//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58841KyleSeebackKyle-SeebackDufferin—CaledonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SeebackKyle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): (1105)[English]Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned there are safeguards in place for the mentally ill or people who only suffer from mental health issues. What specific protections have been put in place? From my review, there is no requirement that an assessment by a psychiatrist be done on someone who might be experiencing, for example, severe depression.Application processC-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Government billsHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSecond reading6066538PattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88984PattyHajduHon.Patty-HajduThunder Bay—Superior NorthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HajduPatty_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionHon. Patty Hajdu: (1110)[English]Mr. Speaker, the proposed legislation excludes people whose sole condition is an underlying mental illness. That is because we still do not know enough about how a desire to receive medical assistance in dying might interact with a mental illness. This in no way negates the suffering felt by people who are struggling with mental illness. I have personally worked with people who have severe mental illness and I fully understand that their suffering can be immense. However, we know that, as part of the expression of a variety of different mental illnesses, the desire to end one's life is one of those components.For that reason, we believe this is deserving of extra review through the parliamentary review scheduled in June.Application processC-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Government billsHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSecond reading60665396066540KyleSeebackDufferin—CaledonElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58841KyleSeebackKyle-SeebackDufferin—CaledonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SeebackKyle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): (1110)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand today to add my voice to this debate. I think it is a particularly important debate. It is an important subject, and I think there are a lot of issues that need to be discussed. I am going to confine my comments to issues I have with the bill, things I am concerned about, and my genuine belief that the government will take a very collaborative approach to this legislation. If we take a collaborative approach to this legislation, Canadians will have trust and faith that we developed legislation to actually address their needs and protect their concerns.Speaking of concerns, I have a number of them. I will start off by talking about what I consider to be a significant lack of consultation.This legislation will come up for review in June. It is the five-year mandated review of the legislation. My understanding is that the government has applied for a four-month extension with respect to the implementation of this legislation, which the Quebec court struck down.If we have this four-month extension and have the mandated review of the legislation scheduled in June, what is the rush? Why have we rushed to introduce legislation prior to that mandatory review, which would, of course, be extensive and broad and far more in depth than any consultation that has been done with respect to the current legislation? My understanding is that there was only about two weeks of public consultation for this legislation. In my opinion, that is woefully deficient given the gravity of the topic we are discussing today.This is my first real concern. What is the hurry? What is the rush? The court has given us more time to do this, and I believe we should be taking the time to go through the mandatory review and consult with Canadians, and then decide on the path forward. That is my number one concern.I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Langley—Aldergrove. My thanks to the page for bringing that to my attention. She is doing an excellent job.The next thing I want to talk about is palliative care. The minister has made comments in the House today espousing the great investments that are being made by the government in health care, but has not really talked about any specific investments with respect to palliative care. I think that is a critical thing to look at when we discuss this legislation. I want to remind the minister that Bill C-277, an act providing for the development of a framework on palliative care in Canada, was passed in the previous Parliament in 2017, and clearly states in the preamble:Whereas the Final Report stated that a request for physician-assisted death cannot be truly voluntary if the option of proper palliative care is not available to alleviate a person’s suffering;This was passed by Parliament, so if we are looking to expand the scope of medically assisted death without also expanding the availability of palliative care, we are doing an incredible disservice to Canadians, because the availability of palliative care in this country is poor at best. I am going to speak about this personally just for a moment.Both of my parents suffered from terminal cancer. My mother was not able to get into a palliative care facility because there was no palliative care facility available for her, so she passed away in the hospital. My father was also not able to get into palliative care, but fortunately his illness was longer than my mother's, or unfortunately, depending on how one looks at it, and we were able to get private home care that eased his suffering and made sure he was being taken care of. However, there was no way that he was going to be able to get into palliative care within the scope of his illness.This is affecting Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and the minister has rushed to introduce this bill. Why would the minister not have introduced corollary legislation, or legislation in tandem, or announced increases in funding for palliative care?In my riding of Dufferin—Caledon, there is a fantastic hospice for palliative care. It is called Bethell Hospice. It only has approximately 15 beds. That is the palliative care option in my riding. For approximately 200,000 people, there are 15 palliative care beds. (1115)Members can imagine that there is a significant number of people who are not able to get into palliative care. Therefore, the option of medically assisted death becomes far more attractive for someone who is not able to enter into a palliative care facility. I will repeat that it is clearly a violation of legislation that was passed by the House. When people do not have the option for proper palliative care, their consent for a medically assisted death is significantly in question. I am extraordinarily concerned by the lack of any plan by the government to deal with investments in palliative care.The minister has suggested that there are significant safeguards in place for people who suffer from any type of mental illness. However, I am not sure what those safeguards are. She suggested that just having that condition would exclude someone from obtaining a medically assisted death. What is the definition of that? How are we proving that is the only issue? There is no requirement for individuals to go to a psychiatrist in order to assess that they are not suffering from a severe bout of depression. In my own life, I have gone through extraordinary stages and phases of depression during which I actually did not want to live anymore. I was not seeing a psychiatrist at the time. Would I have then been able to avail myself of these services while I was in a period of particular darkness? We know that mental health is an issue that is rampant throughout this country. Again, I will go back to my first point, which is: Why are we rushing to do this? Why are we not taking the time to go through the five-year review? We need to take the time to find ways to make sure we are safeguarding all Canadians in providing them the option of medically assisted death, if they want it, but also ensuring that people who are choosing this, maybe because of a lack of palliative care, or maybe because of underlying mental health issues, are going to be protected. These are some of the major concerns I have with respect to this piece of legislation. Going back to the consultation, two weeks for online submissions with respect to concerns by Canadians is not anywhere near a sufficient amount of consultation. My understanding is that it was mostly online submissions. This is not a way to get the pulse of Canadians with respect to a very significant issue that is going on in this country. I will continue to ask why there was not a longer or broader consultation. I know this matter will be studied at committee, but having been a member of Parliament now for going on five and a half years, I understand the extreme limitations at committee. We will often have a panel of six witnesses. Those six witnesses will each get their 10-minute statement, and then members of Parliament might get a six-minute intervention to try and raise an issue. If one is going to suggest that a committee study will be far broader in scope, or somewhat more encompassing than the mandatory statutory five-year review, I will respectfully disagree with that submission. Committees absolutely do great work, but they also suffer from an extreme pressure of legislation and time. To suggest that one or two weeks or three meetings at committee is sufficient time to analyze, debate and discuss this legislation, I do not think that is the correct answer. We should be putting this legislation off until we have the mandatory five-year review in June, which would allow us to have a far more expansive discussion with respect to all of the issues that are being discussed in the legislation. These are my comments and concerns with respect to the legislation. I certainly hope the government will listen to these concerns, act collaboratively and co-operatively, and not try to drive this legislation through without listening to legitimate concerns that are being raised by members of the opposition. C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Committee studies and activitiesEnd-of-life careGovernment billsHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPalliative carePublic consultationSecond readingSplitting speaking timeStatutory review60665686066569BruceStantonSimcoe NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88552LucThériaultLuc-ThériaultMontcalmBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThériaultLuc_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ): (1125)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure my Conservative colleague.A psychiatrist must absolutely conduct a mental health assessment of the person who is dying or suffering. Family doctors are able to prescribe antidepressants to treat depression. Sometimes, a doctor may have to tell a patient that there are no further treatments available and then refer that patient to palliative care to ease their suffering. If the patient immediately says that they want to access MAID, the doctor will prescribe antidepressants, because there are steps to go through long before a patient can access MAID. I have a hard time understanding the problem my Conservative colleague sees, since the bill excludes mental illness. Everyone thinks that pain relief in palliative care is common practice, regardless of whether the patient is receiving care. This is called a good medical practice. Relief is provided for pain. No terminal patient receiving good care that manages pain is forced to ask for medical assistance in dying. Patients who request it do so by choice. This choice is necessary, and for there to be a choice, there need to be options.C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Government billsHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPalliative careSecond reading606658560665866066587KyleSeebackDufferin—CaledonKyleSeebackDufferin—Caledon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58841KyleSeebackKyle-SeebackDufferin—CaledonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SeebackKyle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Kyle Seeback: (1125)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am not disputing that people should have options. That is certainly the whole point of the legislation. I am not arguing against that. What I am suggesting is that there are not sufficient safeguards in place, from my perspective. While the member might say that going to see a family doctor to talk about depression is an excellent way to be treated for depression, I can say from my experience that it is absolutely not a good option. My family doctor and most family doctors are completely incapable of treating someone for depression. Yes, they might be able to prescribe a medication, but medication is not the answer to all depression. My concern, and we are here to raise concerns, is that this is not properly addressed in this legislation. I do not believe there are proper safeguards in place. That is something we should be discussing here during debate, at committee and certainly in the five-year review that will take place in June.C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Government billsHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPalliative careSecond reading606658860665896066590LucThériaultMontcalmTakoVan PoptaLangley—Aldergrove//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88687NathanielErskine-SmithNathaniel-Erskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Erskine-SmithNathaniel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.): (1155)[English]Mr. Speaker, we have a unique opportunity to fix our assisted dying laws and to protect the individual right of all Canadians to make such a fundamental and deeply personal choice for themselves.I opposed the assisted dying laws in the last Parliament because they were too restrictive. They were not in keeping with the Supreme Court's decision in Carter and I believed them to be unconstitutional, and here we are. A Quebec court found the law to be unconstitutional and we agreed, rightly, to abide by that decision. We have another chance to get it right.As we look forward to what getting it right looks like, we should also look behind us at the Supreme Court's decision in Carter. Those in the House have talked about striking a balance between the fundamental freedom of individuals to choose for themselves and the autonomy of the individual to make such a deeply personal choice, and protecting vulnerable persons. For people who read the Supreme Court's decision in Carter, they will know that the Supreme Court struck that balance with a number of safeguards that look like this: to be eligible for assisted dying, one needs to be suffering intolerably and in an enduring way; one needs to be in a grievous and irremediable condition, an incurable illness; and the individual in question needs to be competent and to clearly consent.The government in the last Parliament incorrectly, in my view, added an additional criterion for eligibility that one's death needed to be reasonably foreseeable. That is unnecessarily and unduly restrictive. I will get to a court case in particular that explains this in greater detail.There are two core injustices that the new law proposes to fix. First, the question of removing the “reasonably foreseeable” requirement as a matter of eligibility, and also addressing the case of Audrey Parker. We had another fundamental injustice where an individual who was eligible for MAID took her life earlier than she otherwise would have, lost time in her life that she otherwise would have spent with her family and loved ones. She was worried about losing competence and being unable to give consent near the very end, despite the fact that was exactly what she wanted.The Council of Canadian Academies identified three levels of advance requests: where an individual is already eligible for MAID, such as in the Audrey Parker case; where an individual has been diagnosed and is not yet eligible, but is on the path towards eligibility; and where someone has not yet been diagnosed, so is farther from eligibility for MAID. In this case we have identified a solution to one of those categories, but we ought to solve advance requests more broadly going forward.Is the law perfect? No, but it is worthy of our support at second reading. However, there are a number of concerns worth highlighting.First, while a reasonably foreseeable death is no longer a criterion of eligibility, there are additional hurdles for individuals to pass if their death is not within the near future. One of two practitioners assessing eligibility must have expertise in the condition. Although that sounds very reasonable in theory, my only question for committee members as they look at this is to ensure that is not an impossible barrier in practice, particularly for those in rural communities where such expertise may not exist at all times.There is also a minimum, and I would say somewhat arbitrary, period of 90 days for the assessment of the request. It looks like a backdoor cooling-off period. It would make far more sense for us to have no time limit and the assessment to be done in the ordinary course, or at least a much shorter time period, because we are talking about people who are suffering incredibly and are competent to make the decision for themselves.Does it cure the case for Audrey Parker? I think largely it does, but I worry that if the main procedure must be scheduled already, what does that mean? If Audrey Parker was in a situation to say, “I am not exactly sure what the time period will be. I know it is not now but I know it will be soon”, is she to have scheduled a particular date, which would make her eligible for the advance request, or are we going to put people in a situation where they are scheduling something earlier than they otherwise would?Mental health is a real challenge because we are building an additional criterion into this legislation that says:For the purposes of MAID eligibility, a mental illness is not a “serious and incurable illness, disease or disability”... It sounds reasonable on its face in many ways, because we can immediately imagine a situation where mental illness impinges upon one's ability to give consent, impinges upon one's ability to conduct himself or herself as a competent person, but that is not always the case.(1200)I am aware of some opposition from the Conservative benches. I am also aware of the number of Conservative MPs who come from Alberta. Therefore, want to quote a case from the Alberta Court of Appeal from 2016. This is about a 58-year-old woman, identified as E.F., with severe conversion and psychogenic movement disorders. The court wrote:She suffers from involuntary muscle spasms that radiate from her face through the sides and top of her head and into her shoulders, causing her severe and constant pain and migraines. Her eyelid muscles have spasmed shut...Her digestive system is ineffective... She has significant trouble sleeping and...is non-ambulatory...While her condition is diagnosed as a psychiatric one, her capacity and her cognitive ability to make informed decisions, including providing consent to terminating her life, are unimpaired. This woman was eligible to take advantage of MAID because we did not yet have an unconstitutional law in place to prevent her from accessing the regime. The Alberta Court of Appeal determined this woman was competent and was able to consent for herself. It noted further that she had consulted with her husband and adult children, who were all in support.I worry that if we look at restricting mental illness completely, even if it does not impinge upon people's consent or their ability to conduct themselves as competent persons, we are telling those individuals that they are unable to make fundamental and deeply personal choices for themselves and that they have fewer rights than we do. That cannot possibly be right in this society.This was a recurring problem for the justice department. When it argued the case of E.F. and lost at the Alberta Court of Appeal, it argued that the current criteria meant that terminal illness was required. The court said no. It argued that illness for a psychiatric condition should be deemed ineligible. Again, it lost in the Alberta Court of Appeal. Therefore, if we are to respect the Carter decision and the precedent in case law since the Carter decision, I do not think we ought to have such a categorical exclusion in our law.In Carter, the Supreme Court noted:It is a crime in Canada to assist another person in ending her own life. As a result, people who are grievously and irremediably ill cannot seek a physician’s assistance in dying and may be condemned to a life of severe and intolerable suffering. A person facing this prospect has two options: she can take her own life prematurely, often by violent or dangerous means, or she can suffer until she dies from natural causes. The choice is cruel.The Alberta Court of Appeal stated, “The cruelty in the situation is there regardless of whether the illness causing the suffering may be classified as terminal”, and certainly continues to be there regardless of whether the suffering has, as its primary focus, a psychiatric disorder. As a final note on this subject, this law, if carried forward without an amendment, will treat mental illness as lesser than physical illness, a stigma we have worked hard to combat in other settings.As I said previously, we have to tackle advance direct requests more seriously than we have in this legislation. I know there is an ability to have this broader conversation later this year, as we revisit this conversation. I certainly think if people are diagnosed with a condition and they can clearly see where it is heading, they should be able to determine their futures. I would want to, as a matter of my fundamental freedoms, be able to determine my future. Also, in directing our own futures, we ought to be able to provide advance requests more broadly and more easily, even if we have not been diagnosed. I recognize the Council of Canadian Academies has identified that we need certainty. How do we provide certainty? Through sunset clauses. If we have not revisited and re-upped our commitment to our advance request within a certain period of time, then it would fall away. That would allow for certainty to take hold.There are other things we could look to in the law, including mature minors, because minors have the ability to make life-changing decisions in medical contexts in other settings outside of MAID. However, in the end, this law needs to ensure that anyone eligible for MAID, pursuant to the Carter criteria, continues to be eligible for MAID through this law. It is a matter of fundamental freedoms and dignity in the end.Application processC-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Capacity of consent for careCouncil of Canadian AcademiesDoctorsExpert panelsGovernment billsHealth care systemLiving willsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSecond readingTerminal illnesses6066676606667760666786066679606668160666826066683606668460666856066689IrekKusmierczykWindsor—TecumsehTamaraJansenCloverdale—Langley City//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1210)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.I am very happy to be taking part in this debate, which is a departure from our usual political and often partisan work as elected officials.This is the third time in my parliamentary career that I have been asked to debate and vote on the issue of medical assistance in dying. I was a member of Quebec's National Assembly for seven years, and I have served here in the House of Commons since 2015 with the support of my constituents.[English]I was elected to the national assembly in 2008. As a member of that assembly, I participated in the first debate we had in Quebec on this issue, the first time in a Canadian legislature, in 2010.I also was a participant in the debate we had four years ago in the House of Commons, when, for first time, we addressed the issue. Therefore, in my parliamentary life, this is the third time I will participate and vote on this very touchy, personal and non-partisan issue.[Translation]That is why I would like to remind the House of certain cardinal rules that should guide our actions as parliamentarians in this debate, which we believe should be totally non-partisan. Things may get tense at times, but debate must remain respectful.Respecting the free vote should be one of the cardinal rules of this debate. In my view, there is no right or wrong position in this debate. There are only positions that we are comfortable with as human beings. Whether we are for or against, there is no partisan politics behind it. There is only the personal opinion that we hold, share and analyze. Consequently, it is important to keep a completely open mind and respect the fact that certain colleagues from our own party may not share our point of view, while colleagues from other parties may. That is fine. There is nothing wrong with that, really. Some positions we adopt, and some positions we cannot be comfortable with. That is all.We must respect the debate. We must respect personal opinions. We must respect the fact that there is no place for partisanship in this debate and that positions are neither right nor wrong. There are positions that we can agree with and others that we cannot. We must respect that.There are also certain elements that we must bear in mind before we dive into this. In our opinion, the bill has some shortcomings.First, we must respect the freedom of conscience of physicians who are called on to provide MAID. If a physician feels that they cannot in good conscience provide MAID, they should be able to say so and not have to proceed. I have spoken to many people in the context of this debate, in which I have been participating for a very long time. Everyone I have spoken to has told me that physicians can show a certain openness in some circumstances, but change their minds in others. Physicians should never be forced to act against their conscience.Furthermore, we should always bear in mind that MAID, by its very nature, is the last level of health care that can be offered. We must never forget that the role of palliative care is to ensure that those who are ill can live with dignity even in tragic circumstances. Therefore, we must respect physicians' conscience and focus on palliative care.Taking our time is another cardinal rule that must be respected in this type of debate.(1215)[English]Let me remind members that the first time this issue was addressed in Quebec, it took six full years, three different governments and three different premiers. There was a huge debate about it, a strong and wise debate. Each and every position had been clearly established by those people who participated in the debate. There is no rush. We must take our time. For some people, we are talking about assisted suicide. It is a very touchy issue. The worst-case scenario is to rush it. Quebec spent six full years, and we should follow this example. It obviously will not take six years this time, but the first step took six full years.[Translation]Let's agree that this debate cannot be rushed.Why are we debating Bill C-7 today?When the House of Commons adopted Bill C-14 in 2016, I was a member of the committee that studied it. We knew then that Canadians would challenge parts of it and that there would be court rulings. That is exactly what happened on September 11, 2019, when the Quebec Superior Court struck down the notion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” in the bill that became An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts regarding medical assistance in dying.I did not know this before I looked it up, but it is interesting to note that the current Minister of Justice, a man for whom I have tremendous respect and esteem owing to his experience as a lawyer and a McGill University professor, voted against Bill C-14. Now, as Minister of Justice, he is sponsoring this bill as the federal government's response to the Quebec Superior Court's ruling. The bill addresses some of the issues but sets others aside. The first fundamental element of Bill C-7 is that it eliminates the 10-day waiting period that the current law requires as a buffer between the person's decision and the operation itself, to ensure that the second opinion provided for under the act is in fact obtained. The court deemed this provision invalid, and the minister decided to accept that opinion.Let's also not forget that the current law, which was passed four years ago, requires the provisions to be reviewed in just a few months, starting in June 2020.The government decided to take note of the Superior Court of Québec ruling and act accordingly. That is its right. However, regardless of our views on the issue, we feel that this subject involves some truly fundamental questions and raises highly complex legal concerns. We think this ruling should have been appealed to the highest court in the land, so that the nine justices of the Supreme Court could study every possible ramification.This bill sidesteps the issue of mental illness entirely. That is a very good thing, because in our view, it is extremely difficult to pinpoint the instant when a mental illness becomes irreversible, which can raise doubts about whether consent was given fully and freely.As I said earlier, the worst thing we could do in this matter is move too fast. There is no rush. This concern may eventually be debated, but for now, let's take it one step at a time.Since my time is almost up, I would just like to say that in this debate on such a delicate, sensitive issue, the worst thing we could do is plough full steam ahead and attack people's convictions instead of respecting their choices. Let's take the time to do things right on this extremely delicate and extremely important issue.Appeals and appeals officersApplication processC-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)DoctorsFreedom of conscience and religionGovernment billsHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPalliative careSecond readingSplitting speaking timeStatutory reviewTerminal illnesses6066731NathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkLucThériaultMontcalm//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105835NellyShinNelly-ShinPort Moody—CoquitlamConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ShinNelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Nelly Shin (Port Moody—Coquitlam, CPC): (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to medical assistance in dying, is one that I believe was written with the intention of providing compassion to those who are suffering through an unfathomable, unbearable degree of pain by allowing a lawful, expedited termination of their suffering and granting access to a dignified death. The intention is kind. I see an urgency from the government to extend this expression of compassion to those who are suffering beyond comprehension. However, from the perspective of a visionary and a lawmaker who cares for the long-term wellness and prosperity of our country, I would like to invite all members of the House to pause and bring into our dialogue the long-term effect of this bill and the impact of this bill on the guiding principles of lawmaking going forward.I do not stand to speak on this bill with the moral authority of one who has reached a point of suffering equal to those who may be applying for MAID. I do not think most members of the House here have the personal experience to speak on that level. However, I do stand here to speak on this issue because there has been a force in my life that carried me through some very dark nights of the soul when adversity, pain and repeated cycles of injustice were poignant enough to wear down my will to fight and to try, sometimes causing me to question the value of my existence.I have seen this force raise addicts, cancer patients and those experiencing deep depression from deep pits of psychological paralysis and darkness. This force transcends the distinctions of race, gender, socio-economic background, etc. It is almost as vital as life itself. It is a force that is central to the existence of the human race, and that force is called “hope”. While hope is easier to access for some than others, for others it may be almost impossible, because their painful experience is choking the light from their vision.As caring individuals, as communities and as a nation that prides itself on compassion, it is our duty to turn over every stone to help others find hope when they can no longer access it themselves. Hope is a journey that demands an unrelenting search until it is found. We saw it with Terry Fox. He is a national symbol of hope, because despite his painful struggle with cancer, he made the sacrifice he made with his cross-country campaign for cancer research because he was in search of hope and giving that hope to others. The story of his triumph over adversity, though his life was tragically truncated at such a young age, still continues to champion Canadians today, as Canadians respond by revering him as a national hero, because we value hope. We have seen the power of hope that compelled Terry to pass the finish line of his last breath.We see hope whenever we see Team Canada send our Paralympians to the Olympics. Many of them have overcome deep physical, emotional and mental suffering. Their focus, discipline and excellence have helped them to overcome their challenges.Our nation is built on a foundation that values the sustenance of life and the right to prosper. We invest millions of dollars every year in first responders, medical services, infrastructure and laws to protect the survival, sustenance and prosperity of the people.However, expediting the administration of death is counterintuitive to the inner reach for hope in the human condition. Our very Constitution is founded on the principles of the value of human life, the prosperity of each human being and each one's access to the opportunity to flourish. While deep with the intentions of compassion and the appropriation of dignity, intervening with easier access to MAID opens a door to a very complicated path of further suffering, even for those who live on. I would like to bring to the attention of the House the story of a man named Alan Nichols, from my province of British Columbia. As reported by CTV this past September, his family has stressed that Alan struggled with depression and should not have qualified for assisted death.Alan's brother Gary told CTV:He didn't have a life-threatening disease. He was capable of getting around. He was capable of doing almost anything that you had to do to survive. Like many Canadians, Alan's life was altered dramatically when his father passed away. Especially since his father had been so involved in his life, his father's death made him particularly vulnerable, and he stopped taking antidepressants and became more angry and isolated:Not going out in public, not seeing anybody, not eating properly.This is how Gary described it.(1230)Alan's family knows that he rid his home of furniture, apart from a bed and chair, and that he would refuse medication and food because of his depression. Another disturbing aspect to Alan's story is that despite his family's attempts to be involved in his life and an advocate for his life, his family members report that the hospital staff would not share information with them and shut them out from hearing the key facts.There is more to this story, but I will leave it at that. This is accessible information.The point I would like to illustrate here is that this is a very complicated issue. It is one that touches something so deep and necessary to our existence and our country, and that is hope. All because of the irreversibility of death, there is little intervention that can be done afterward when hope is terminated because there is no breath to receive the assistance of hope.Rather than be in a rush to legislate this bill, we should focus on tackling things like the epidemic of suicide among first nations communities and youth. We should also focus on giving Canadians better access to mental health care so Canadians have greater access to hope when faced with situations of suffering, as people who are suffering so much consider MAID. We must do this until there are enough measures to show the flourishing of hope and human prosperity to counter a potential culture of death from capturing our nation, if we are to be too swift and lenient in our decisions surrounding issues of death.It pains me to watch others suffer, but it also pains me to think that as lawmakers, our focus is on expediting access to death rather than expediting access to hope.My statement in the House today is to inspire all members of this House to not only consider the dignity of the people suffering seeking release through death, but the dignity of existence and human prosperity for the long term.Removing the mandatory 10-day waiting period reduces protections for vulnerable members of society. The government's original legislation, Bill C-14, went through extensive consultation. It is scheduled for parliamentary review this summer. I would ask the Liberal government to respect the process and allow the review to proceed rather than rush this very sensitive and complex issue in legislation. Let us give this time because death is irreversible. I have decided to look at this bill through a filter of hope and preserving a culture of hope, as being a force that guides the laws we make not only today but for decades and centuries to come. Therefore, I stand today in the name of hope and invite my colleagues across all aisles to examine this bill through the lenses of hope and preserving hope in our country.Application processC-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Government billsHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSecond readingStatutory review60667616066762606676360667646066765606676660667676066770GérardDeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentJudy A.SgroHon.Humber River—Black Creek//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1787Judy A.SgroHon.JudyA--SgroHumber River—Black CreekLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SgroJudyA_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionHon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.): (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, I wanted to applaud my colleague's courage and recognize that every word she spoke today is probably the same words that all of us as parliamentarians have spoken. Hope is eternal. Hope is what gives us all the energy to fight the battles we have in our lives and in our family's lives. We must never eliminate that hope people want to have in various aspects in their lives.When we dealt with this bill previously, it was amazingly complicated, as my hon. colleague mentioned. It was probably one of the most difficult issues I have had to deal with in my 20-some years as a parliamentarian. By listening to people, like my colleague and others, we try to find the way that reflects the feelings of so many people.Investing more money makes sure that there are programs that offer hope, whether we are talking about mental health, palliative care or so many other avenues. We are trying to ensure that everybody has hope and that they do not want to give it up and that we have given them every opportunity possible to access that help.Does my colleague feel there is still a tremendous lack of those services in the areas she represents?C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Government billsHealth care systemHealth services accessibilityMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPalliative careSecond reading60667776066778NellyShinPort Moody—CoquitlamNellyShinPort Moody—Coquitlam//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105835NellyShinNelly-ShinPort Moody—CoquitlamConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ShinNelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Nelly Shin: (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's compassionate remarks. I am very emotional right now because it is a very important issue for everyone, and in some way or another we are all impacted by it. I have spent time on the front lines. I believe, whether it is in the area I represent or anywhere else in Canada, there is a lack of access to counselling and mental health care that would, as I mentioned in my speech, give tools to Canadians to work through their struggles, adversity and pains to access more hope before moving in the direction of medical assistance in dying.I understand fully the implications of compassion that this piece of legislation is wanting to present, but because of the irreversibility of death, I feel time is needed. Preventatively and for the long-term future of our country, we must deal with all those other areas with greater care and time.C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Government billsHealth care systemHealth services accessibilityMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPalliative careSecond reading60667796066780Judy A.SgroHon.Humber River—Black CreekCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise today to address a very important piece of legislation. Looking at it, I could not help but reflect on the previous debates that we had and the process in the development of Bill C-14, which led us to the point where we are today. If members who were not here want to get a good sense of how thorough the debate and discussions were, I recommend they take a look at some of the comments in the standing committees, the many lead-up discussions, different presentations and the pre-study that was conducted. I enjoyed listening to the debates then, because like the member who just spoke said, we heard a lot of personal stories. When people ask me what I enjoy about being in the chamber, it is the different types of debates that we have. These are the ones, like the debate today, that I learn from. I appreciate the stories that come before the House. We are all concerned about protecting vulnerable individuals in our society. At the same time, it is important as legislators to have a role to support the eligible person to be able to seek medical assistance in dying. It is a very difficult issue.A good number of us felt with the passing of Bill C-14 that we had something that would move us forward. Even during the height of that discussion, there was a feeling that in a number of years we should review it and take a look at what has transpired in the previous years. We are quickly getting to that point.However, last September, a Superior Court in Quebec made a determination. Members of the Conservative Party say maybe we should have appealed that decision. I respect that opinion. I do not necessarily believe that would have been the best direction for the government. The direction we have chosen is to make changes to the legislation now, in the hope that we will better serve Canadians.Having said that, once we get into the summer months, there is going to be a great deal of discussion because it is mandated. When I think of the Bill C-14 debate, and I will provide some personal thoughts on the issue of palliative care, I would like to see us talk about the issue of mental illness. I am hoping that, when we do that comprehensive review, we incorporate that along with palliative care.I am sure I am not unique and that all 338 members would concur when we think of health care in Canada, there are a couple of issues at our doors: the issue of mental health care services and palliative care services. I used to be the health care critic 15 years ago in Manitoba. We did not have the same sort of dialogue that we hear in the last number of years on those two critically important issues.British Columbia many years ago elevated the issue of mental illness and made it a separate ministry. There was a minister of health and a minister of mental health illnesses. (1245)I say that because, more and more, provinces are aware of the issue and the importance of mental illness. The Government of Canada has invested hundreds of millions of dollars over the last number of years, and continues to invest in mental illness and palliative care across the country. We are on a very strong footing when we look at where we are today. We need to reflect on what brought us here. There were many consultations: literally thousands of people were engaged and many hours of debate and dialogue took place. It could have been in the thousands of hours. I do not know that for a fact, but I am sure that, between the time committees met on second reading of Bill C-14, the amount of consultation with Canadians in all regions of the country and the responses received via all sorts of mediums, hundreds of thousands of Canadians in all regions of our country were able to weigh in on this issue.If we advance to January of this year, again there were consultations and round tables that took us to the different regions of Canada. There was the survey that has been referenced already today on several occasions. Approximately 300,000 Canadians were engaged in that particular survey at the beginning of the year. I do not know if all of the results have gone public to date, but I trust the individuals who helped formulate the legislation we are debating today did their homework in terms of consultations and incorporating all of the ideas. I know the Department of Justice and the Department of Health are following this debate and listening to what members have to say.From a personal perspective, based on experiences I have garnered over the years, there are two concerns I want to express. One is with regard to health care services and the other deals with the legislation itself. Let me expand on both points.If we were to ask Canadians what makes them feel good about being Canadian, we would often hear our health care services. I suspect this is probably number one. I referenced mental illness and palliative care. I have witnessed first-hand the evolution of palliative care. My grandmother was in the St. Boniface Hospital, and many hospitals in our country have palliative care sections. Many of them panel seniors, in particular, who cannot get the quality care necessary in personal care home facilities or the supports they need in their communities and in their homes, so they end up going into hospitals and are panelled. Many of them will go into palliative care because there are no designated palliative care units in health care facilities, so they end up in hospitals. My grandmother was one of them. She had terminal cancer, and we watched as the weeks went by. Family members visited and it was very difficult on them. (1250)We had a very special relationship, as we all do with our grandparents. Many of us wondered why she had to be in a hospital. Even though it was kind of sectioned off from the emergency department and other aspects of the hospital, she was still in a hospital. It is a different type of a situation, and not necessarily the most comfortable.Ultimately, my grandmother passed. Then, a number of years later, I had the personal experience of being there for my father in the days prior to his passing. He had to go from home into a hospital, and we were very fortunate that we were able to get him into the Riverview Health Centre. In that centre, with its large windows and beautiful atmosphere, you get the feeling that the type of care is very different.I reflect on that. I was there at the moment of my father's passing, and we had discussions a number of days prior when he was in fear of what was going to happen, because he witnessed what had taken place with his mother, my grandma, at the St. Boniface Hospital. He did not have that choice, but we talked about having that choice.I think, knowing my father, he would have been very happy with the way in which he ultimately passed. I really attribute it to his world-class treatment at that particular facility, and I kind of wish that my grandmother had the same sort of atmosphere. Not to take away from the fantastic work that those health care providers and others did at the St. Boniface Hospital, but it was a totally different atmosphere.During the Bill C-14 debate, we heard many stories like the one we just heard from the member opposite. They are very touching, they are compelling and they make us ask what we can do here in Ottawa to ensure that we have the best quality of health care services we can possibly provide.It is one of the reasons I am very passionate on the issue of the national framework. It does not have to be a system where we have one thing in British Columbia and another in Atlantic Canada or in the province of Quebec, or in provinces that do not have the same economic means or the same sort of treasury to provide the type of service that they should. This is where the national government has a role to play.When I listen to comments inside the House with regard to where we might want to go from here, or very serious concerns about the current legislation, I would suggest that we reflect on what we are going to be able to potentially do in the coming months, when we have the opportunity. Unlike in the Manitoba legislature, our standing committees can be exceptionally effective. It is truly amazing, the type of authority, ability and participation that we can witness if we are prepared to park our partisan hats at the door and try to do what is best for Canadians on this issue. If we can take a look at what took place, with regard to C-14, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we can do that.If members listened to the previous speaker, they would get a sense of what was taking place when we had the debates on C-14. Whether it is in the health standing committee or whatever it is that we come up with collectively, with representation from all the parties, I would encourage them to take into consideration the possibility of going outside of Ottawa.(1255)Maybe we should look at different regions and see what some of these other provinces are doing, and maybe tour some of the palliative care facilities. There is a great variance.We need to look. If I reflect on the province of Manitoba, we should take a look at what is happening in Winkler, Flin Flon or Winnipeg. We should take a look at the difference between Riverview Health Centre and what takes place in the Seven Oaks hospital.Where, and what role, can we play as a national government to ensure that we are maximizing the benefits of providing the type of palliative care that Canadians expect and deserve, given the limitations that we actually have? Only the national government can do that. I suggest it is going to be in a very important role. Earlier today, the standing committee on trade tabled the CUSMA deal, the trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Many of the members were taking pictures of that particular committee, feeling very positive in terms of what they had been able to accomplish.My challenge to the health committee, if that is going to be the standing committee, is to take that role very seriously in terms of the potentially life-changing report it could produce for Canadians. I truly believe that the will is there to support what that committee is hoping to accomplish. It is just as significant as, and maybe even more important than, the report tabled today by the trade committee, which from what I understand was supported unanimously by all members of the House. If one listens to the speeches thus far, I do not think anyone would dispute what I said in regard to it. I really encourage the standing committee, in the strongest way I can, to look at the mental illness issue using the same principles I talked about regarding palliative care. It is such a critically important issue, and Ottawa needs to play a stronger national leadership role on that. Hopefully that will happen, but because of time I am only going to highlight a few very brief points.The proposed amendments would allow for a waiver of final consent for persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, in the sense that they have been assessed and approved to receive medical assistance in dying, and have made arrangements with their practitioners for a waiver of final consent in certain situations because they were at risk of losing decision-making capacity by their chosen date to receive MAID.I also want to highlight that the government is very aware of the concerns about the increased risks when MAID is provided to persons who are not dying in the short term. The bill, therefore, proposes additional safeguards that would apply when a person's natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. These new safeguards aim to ensure that sufficient time and expertise are devoted to exploring requests for MAID from persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable and that such people are made aware of, and seriously consider, available means for relieving their suffering.There is another really important part to me, but maybe I will do it in the question-and-answer period.Application processC-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Capacity of consent for careCommittee studies and activitiesFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsHealth care systemLiving willsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPalliative carePublic consultationSecond reading6066792606679360667946066816NellyShinPort Moody—CoquitlamDavidSweetFlamborough—Glanbrook//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88418YvesPerronYves-PerronBerthier—MaskinongéBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerronYves_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): (1310)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my very esteemed colleague from Shefford.The debate we are having today must be handled with restraint, dignity and composure. Partisanship has no place here. This is a serious matter, and our decision will have significant repercussions on the lives of many, and perhaps even on our own lives one day, because we all have to leave this world sometime. It is inevitable.The sad thing in all this is that, through decisions made in this very Parliament, our society has forced people who are suffering to suffer even more. People with severe medical conditions were forced to appeal to the justice system to have their most basic rights upheld. Worse yet, some had to go on a hunger strike to get access to medical assistance in dying by meeting the reasonably foreseeable death requirement. Do hon. members have any idea what we have asked these suffering patients to endure?These long-suffering people coping with illness, trying to get through the day in unspeakable physical and psychological agony, were forced to go to court or put themselves in a position where their death was reasonably foreseeable. Everyone knows that the justice system is backed up. The costs and delays are typically unreasonable. These people had to endure a veritable ordeal because we made a decision for them.We failed to make informed decisions that upheld individual liberty. It is a huge privilege to sit in this House, and with that privilege come serious responsibilities. We must honour our position. I want all members of the House to know that this time, we cannot fail. Courageous patients have had to fight the system to get us to make a wise, informed decision. The Superior Court of Québec gave very clear directives. We must have the courage and vision to apply these directives and support this bill in principle, because it deserves to be improved in committee.The Baudouin decision in favour of Nicole Gladu and Jean Truchon is very clear: “The Court has no hesitation in concluding that the reasonably foreseeable natural death requirement infringes Mr. Truchon and Ms. Gladu's rights to liberty and security, protected by section 7 of the Charter.”We must read those last few lines carefully. They refer to the rights to life and freedom of choice. Which of us can presume to choose for someone else? I want to warn my colleagues against the temptation to think about themselves. I want to warn them against voting according to their own beliefs, philosophies or religion. Freedom to choose must be upheld, and in order to choose, we need options. The basis of the decision, which came after a very long wait and constant anguish, makes it very clear that this is about rights and freedoms. No one can choose for another person. We must remove the barriers so that everyone can live out their last moments in their own way, freely and without constraint. Of course, we must not fail to protect the most vulnerable, in accordance with the well-established rule, in medical practice, of free and informed consent. That means informed by exposure to all possible options, and free from any undue pressure.This bill is a step in the right direction. It includes important precautionary measures and provides for the study of other important issues that need to be considered. Among other things, it would exclude people suffering solely from mental illness. I think that is a wise decision. This is an extremely complex issue that should be studied further. We cannot decide on this issue right now, hence the need to study it properly without skipping any steps.We must also look at the issue of advance requests for persons newly diagnosed with a condition that may have an impact on their decision-making ability in the future. These are extremely sensitive issues that we must study with great care and a great deal of precaution. It is therefore wise not to include them for now.Generally speaking, the purpose of this bill is to allow those suffering from degenerative, incurable diseases to have access to medical assistance in dying, whether natural death is reasonably foreseeable or not, except in cases of degenerative cognitive disease, as I was just saying. (1315)For people whose death is reasonably foreseeable, this is about relaxing the rules by eliminating the 10-day waiting period between the written request and the administration of MAID. The 10-day waiting period may be waived if a person has been assessed and their request for MAID has been approved and arrangements have been made with their practitioner to obtain a waiver of final consent because the patient is at risk of losing their capacity to make a decision as the disease progresses or with the administration of pain-relief medication. That way, when making the request for MAID, the patient can agree to waive consent the second time if their pain is beyond treatment, even with care.This last measure allows the person to live longer with a reasonable quality of life. The person therefore does not have to feel like they have to rush to request MAID out of fear of losing their capacity to do so.For people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable, there is a 90-day delay between the request and the provision of the MAID service, unless assessments have been made and the loss of capacity is imminent. This time period must therefore be applied in a reasonable and reasoned manner. Who among us can guarantee that 90 days will be enough for some? Who among us can say whether 90 days will be too long a hell to endure for others? We are entitled to question the application of this delay. No one can say. That is why this clause and this entire bill will have to be implemented in a sensible, flexible and intelligent way. Practitioners are in the best position to determine what is valid and what is not when they work together with their patients, listen to them and, of course, treat them humanely. Ultimately, the priority must be the patients themselves, their well-being and their dignity.I remind all members that although we are talking about dignity, this is above all about rights and freedoms. Every person at end of life must have options, and that individual is the only one who should be able to make that choice. We must not impose our own values and opinions. We must simply ensure that we provide a suitable framework regulating the practice of and the right to medical assistance in dying. We must respect the freedom of the individual. That is fundamental. I urge all parliamentarians in the House to consider the huge responsibility we must shoulder. We hold in our hands the fate of hundreds of thousands of people. Not only is the end-of-life suffering of these people in our hands, but the suffering and anguish of their family members is as well. It is horrific to watch a loved one suffer at end of life and to feel helpless. Some members of the House may be thinking about personal choices. As I mentioned earlier, we need to figure out a reasonable framework for this very complex act and, through all of this, maintain freedom of choice for these individuals.Application processC-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Canadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsCapacity of consent for careGovernment billsHealth care systemLiving willsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSecond readingSplitting speaking timeTerminal illnessesTruchon v. Attorney General of Canada6066853KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthArifViraniParkdale—High Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88910ArifViraniArif-ViraniParkdale—High ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViraniArif_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1320)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I have some questions for him.During the debates today and yesterday, a lot was said about some MAID practitioners. I would like to know whether the member heard the same concerns raised by the Conservatives about doctors who pressure patients too aggressively.My second question has to do with the fact that mental illness is not included in the bill and that we will be studying it, as the member mentioned. I would like to hear his thoughts on the fact that the Government of Quebec also decided to study whether mental illness should be an underlying condition.I would like to hear his thoughts on those two questions.C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Government billsHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSecond reading6066863YvesPerronBerthier—MaskinongéYvesPerronBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88418YvesPerronYves-PerronBerthier—MaskinongéBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerronYves_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Yves Perron: (1320)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. His questions are valid.I will start by answering his second question.With respect to mental illness, the Government of Quebec chose to study the issue more thoroughly before including it in the law. If two separate lawmaking bodies are making the same choices, that strongly suggests we are on the right path. I think it is a reasonable decision. Laws as impactful as MAID legislation must be drafted very carefully.With respect to doctors' policies, I heard the horror stories some of our colleagues shared with the House. It is important to note that the medical profession is extremely well regulated. We need to make sure this bill provides a solid framework.Some MPs shared examples of real cases with us, and I would encourage them to report those cases. I believe such cases are rare exceptions.By far, most health professionals, including doctors, nurses and attendants, are dedicated to and care deeply about the well-being of their patients. They will take every possible precaution to ensure that the patient's choice is free and informed. As I said, for patients to make free and informed choices, they must be made aware of their options.C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Government billsHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSecond reading606686560668666066867606686860668696066870ArifViraniParkdale—High ParkTamaraJansenCloverdale—Langley City//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104973AndréanneLaroucheAndréanne-LaroucheSheffordBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LaroucheAndréanne_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): (1325)[Translation]Madam Speaker, it is with great humility that I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to medical assistance in dying.Many MPs have very personal stories about the end of life of one of their loved ones. As the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors, it goes without saying that I have heard my share. Therefore, in my speech, I will recall the work done by the Bloc on this issue, the sensitivity that exists in Quebec regarding medical assistance in dying and, finally, the position of certain groups of seniors and women who have come to meet with me.First, let me go over the context again. In September 2019, the Quebec Superior Court ruled in favour of Nicole Gladu and Jean Truchon, both suffering from a serious degenerative disease, stating that one of the eligibility criteria for medical assistance in dying is too restrictive. This criterion, that of “reasonably foreseeable natural death”, is found in the federal government's Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts with regard to medical assistance in dying, and the provincial government's Act respecting end-of-life care.Justice Christine Baudouin said it well in her ruling when she wrote: “The Court has no hesitation in concluding that the reasonably foreseeable natural death requirement infringes Mr. Truchon and Ms. Gladu’s rights to liberty and security, protected by section 7 of the Charter.” Those two individuals had argued that they were being denied medical assistance in dying because their deaths were not imminent. Let me now remind the House of the Bloc Québécois's position and highlight the outstanding work of the member for Montcalm, to whom I offer my deepest sympathies. I want to thank him for the work he has done on this file because, as he quite rightly pointed out, legislators did not do their job properly with Bill C-14. As a result, issues of a social and political nature are being brought before the courts. We need to make sure that people who have serious, irreversible illnesses are not forced to go to court to access MAID. That would be terrible, and yet that is what will happen if we cannot figure out a way to cover degenerative cognitive diseases.However, we believe that it is important to be very cautious before making any decisions on questions related to mental health. That is why we are relieved that the bill does not address eligibility for MAID for individuals suffering solely from a mental illness. Indeed, this issue requires further reflection, study and consultation, which will be completed at the Standing Committee on Health as soon as the motion moved by my colleague from Montcalm is adopted.For the second part of my speech, I would like to talk about Quebec's sentiments on this whole issue. Quebec was the first jurisdiction in Canada to pass legislation on medical assistance in dying. Wanda Morris, a representative of a B.C. group that advocates for the right to die with dignity, pointed out that the committee studying the issue had the unanimous support of all the parties in the National Assembly. This should be a model for the rest of Canada. Ms. Morris said she felt confident after seeing how it would work in Quebec and seeing that people were pleased to have the option of dying with dignity. The Quebec legislation, which was spearheaded by Véronique Hivon, was the result of years of research and consultation with physicians, patients and the public. It has been reported that 79% of Quebeckers support medical assistance in dying, compared to 68% in the rest of Canada.In 2015, when the political parties in the National Assembly unanimously applauded the Supreme Court ruling on MAID, Véronique Hivon stated: Today is truly a great day for people who are ill, for people who are at the end of their lives, for Quebec and for all Quebeckers who participated in...this profoundly democratic debate that the National Assembly had the courage to initiate in 2009....I believe that, collectively, Quebec has really paved the way, and we have done so in the best possible way, in a non-partisan, totally democratic way.For the third part of my speech, I would like to tell you about a meeting I had with the Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale, or AFEAS, in my role as critic for seniors and status of women. During the meeting, the AFEAS shared with me its concerns with MAID. I will quote the AFEAS 2018-19 issue guide: Is medical assistance in dying a quality of life issue? For those individuals who can no longer endure life and who meet the many criteria for obtaining this assistance, the opportunity to express their last wishes is undoubtedly welcome. This glimmer of autonomy can be reassuring and make it possible to face death more calmly....As the process for obtaining medical assistance in dying is very restrictive, those who use it probably do so for a very simple reason: they have lost all hope....This process cannot be accessed by individuals who are not at the end of life....People with degenerative diseases, who are suffering physically and mentally, do not have access to medical assistance in dying. (1330)Many people are not eligible for MAID because of the federal law governing the practice, which was imposed by a court ruling in February 2015. Four years after Carter, individuals whose quality of life is severely compromised by degenerative diseases are still being forced to ask the courts for permission to end their suffering. In February 2015, the Supreme Court even struck down two sections of the Criminal Code prohibiting Canadian doctors from administering MAID. In Carter, the highest court in the land stated that a competent adult who clearly consents to the termination of life is eligible for MAID if that person “has a grievous and irremediable medical condition...that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.” According to the AFEAS, the Supreme Court's criteria were very broad. In drafting the MAID eligibility criteria, the Government of Canada included the concept of reasonably foreseeable natural death only for people at the end of life, which excludes a significant number of people who are experiencing intolerable physical and mental suffering.The entire process is based on the intensity of the suffering as assessed by a doctor and a panel of experts. The sick person's own assessment is not always taken into account. There are no compassionate criteria among the requirements for obtaining MAID. A person may be at the end of their life and be unable to make the request themselves because they cannot communicate. The law applies only to people who are able to give their free and informed consent up until the very end, which could be terribly traumatic and even cruel to those who have been suffering for years. With regard to advance consent, the AFEAS spoke about the case of Audrey Parker, a woman from Halifax who died with medical assistance on November 1, 2018. She made a video three days before her death. In that three-minute video, she said that she would like nothing more than to make it to Christmas, but that if she became incompetent along the way, she would lose out on her choice of a beautiful, peaceful and, best of all, pain-free death. The Barreau du Québec believes that the law should be amended to comply with the criteria set out in Carter and thus prevent court challenges from being filed by people who should not have to carry such a burden.A panel of experts has studied this issue and recommends, under certain conditions, ending the suffering of patients who have previously expressed their wish to receive medical assistance in dying, but who subsequently become incapable of expressing their consent, in particular people with various forms of dementia or cognitive loss such as Alzheimer's disease. This is why AFEAS is asking, with respect to human rights, that the process of medical assistance in dying be based more on the rights of individuals and on respect for their wishes.With respect to reasonably foreseeable natural death, it requested that the reference to “reasonably foreseeable natural death” be removed from the eligibility criteria. With respect to advance consent, it asked that the person's informed consent be respected and that it be given in advance. Also on the subject of advance consent, it asked that the consent anticipated, stated and recorded by the person be recognized.In conclusion, today's debate demonstrates the need to act so that people suffering from degenerative and incurable diseases are no longer forced to go before the courts to challenge the terms and conditions surrounding eligibility for medical assistance in dying, and so that we can ensure the best possible continuum of care.Let's take action so that everyone can die with dignity.Application processC-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Canadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsCapacity of consent for careConsentGovernment billsHealth care systemHuman diseases and disordersLiving willsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthProvince of QuebecSecond readingTerminal illnessesTruchon v. Attorney General of Canada6066888AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertBardishChaggerHon.Waterloo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89527WilliamAmosWilliam-AmosPontiacLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/AmosWilliam_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. William Amos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry (Science), Lib.): (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the topic of Bill C-7, as we embark on what I expect will be quite a lively and passionate discussion about issues that Canadians care deeply about and certainly my Pontiac constituents. I heard from them for several years on this topic, regular correspondence, regular discussions at the door, so I appreciate this opportunity to discuss certain aspects of our government's proposed changes to the federal MAID legislation.It is timely to share some of the insights from three important studies on very complex and sensitive issues that were not included in the 2016 federal legislation. These are requests by people for whom mental illness is their sole underlying medical condition, advance requests and requests by mature minors. I hope we will get to all three of them, but may only get to the first two.When Bill C-14 was debated in 2016, parliamentarians had difficulty finding common ground on how to address these types of requests within Canada's first assisted dying regime. Understandably, given the challenging nature of these issues and the limited time that was available, due to the Supreme Court's timeline, to deliver on acceptable approaches for Canada, parliamentarians collectively decided that more in-depth study and review of the evidence was needed.The legislation in 2016 therefore included requirements for the government to undertake independent reviews. There were strict timelines set out in Bill C-14 and the studies that needed to be commissioned had to be done within six months of the coming into force of Canada's new legislation on assisted dying and the government was obliged to table the final reports on the studies within a further two years. Both of these timelines were met.In December 2016, the government asked the Council of Canadian Academies, CCA, an independent organization that undertakes evidence-based expert study, to inform our public policy development and to take on these studies that were required by legislation. The resulting reports were tabled in December 2018, documenting extensive review of academic and policy research, stakeholder submissions and international experience in the three subject areas.They also included a broad range of perspectives from relevant health care professions, diverse academic disciplines, advocacy groups, indigenous elders, essentially the whole of Canadian perspective was brought to bear. In accordance with the CCA practice, they did not in fact contain recommendations.Two of the reports, one on request by individuals where mental illness is the sole underlying condition and the report on advance requests have been particularly informative during the development of our government's response to the Quebec's Superior Court decision in Truchon.[Translation] I will first talk about mental illness. Under the current law, very few persons with mental illness as the primary source of their suffering are likely to be eligible for MAID. This is because most mental illnesses do not cause a person's natural death to be reasonably foreseeable.Removing the reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion introduces the possibility for persons with mental illness to be deemed eligible for MAID, if they meet the remaining criteria. During the recent federal round-table consultations held on MAID, we heard many concerns from participants who felt that not enough is known to safely extend eligibility for MAID to people whose suffering is caused by a mental illness alone. They felt that the issue required further examination.We also know that there is generally very little support for expanding eligibility among mental health care practitioners, such as psychiatrists and psychologists, and by organizations representing people with mental illness. The CCA report on this issue noted a number of challenges associated with the delivery of MAID to persons with a mental illness. C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Council of Canadian AcademiesExpert panelsGovernment billsHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSecond reading6066965606696660669676066968AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104922LucDesiletsLuc-DesiletsRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesiletsLuc_BQ.jpgStatements by MembersCat CaféInterventionMr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): (1410)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, on February 13, during my visit to Quebec's wonderful national capital, I stopped in at an original and unique café that is home to 16 cats and one dog. It is called Café félin Ma langue aux chats.The purpose of this enterprise is to bring veterans out of isolation. It was launched by two veterans who were struggling with PTSD and other issues. I want to recognize the dedication and courage of Marie-Pier Tremblay and Lisa Cyr. Their goal is to provide veterans with a space that is free of judgment and labels, where they can get together and interact with complete peace of mind. Basically, it is a refuge.With this initiative, these two women are changing perceptions, preventing suicide and reducing the stigma associated with mental health.I salute Marie-Pier and Lisa.Café Félin Ma Langue Aux ChatsCity of QuébecMental healthStatements by MembersVeterans6067020606702160670226067023CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayLarryMaguireBrandon—Souris//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodHealthInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, GP): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, one in five Canadians suffers from a mental health problem or illness in any given year. Mental illness-related costs in Canada are over $50 billion annually.[Translation]Social costs are high. People with serious mental illness are at greater risk of living in poverty.[English]The Minister of Finance has been tasked with setting national standards for access to mental health services. Could the minister confirm that the upcoming budget will include funding for a national framework that will allow Canadians to access a variety of mental health professionals, including counsellors, and will empower provinces and territories to work together for action on this important issue?Health services accessibilityMental healthOral questions6067229606723060672316067232DarrenFisherDartmouth—Cole HarbourSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88316SeanFraserSean-FraserCentral NovaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FraserSean_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodHealthInterventionMr. Sean Fraser (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, the health of Canadians is a top priority for constituents in every riding from coast to coast to coast. During the recent federal election campaign, we committed to put billions of dollars to support not just mental health, but to improve access to primary care, to implement pharmacare and to improve in-home care for seniors.I look forward to continuing my conversations with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to implement a plan through our fiscal framework that will improve the health of all Canadians.Health services accessibilityMental healthOral questions606723360672346067235JenicaAtwinFrederictonAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89527WilliamAmosWilliam-AmosPontiacLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/AmosWilliam_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. William Amos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry (Science), Lib.): (1515)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will continue to speak to the report of the Council of Canadian Academies on the provision of medical assistance in dying to those struggling with mental illness.The complexity of the issue is reflected in the fact that the members of the Council of Canadian Academies working group had vastly different opinions on the subject. On the one hand, the reports note that symptoms of mental disorder can impair cognitive abilities, making it more difficult to understand or appreciate the nature and consequences of treatment decisions.The word “incurable” is not generally used by clinicians in the context of mental disorders, which makes it difficult to assess the condition of a person with “irremediable” health problems under the current legislation.[English]On the other hand, the report points out that the autonomy rights of an individual with a mental illness must be respected. The report cites the experiences of Belgium and the Netherlands, which permit assisted dying for psychiatric conditions, with additional safeguards. However, the report also acknowledges that assisted dying for persons with mental illnesses in these jurisdictions remains controversial, and the public debate is ongoing. Ultimately, the working group could not reach consensus on ways to address complexities and mitigate risks associated with mental illness and medical assistance in dying.On the topic of advance requests, the Council of Canadian Academies report on advance requests also documents considerable evidence and provided many instructive findings on an issue of great interest and concern to many Canadians. Particularly in our riding, this was an issue I heard a lot about.An advance request is a request for assisted dying made well in advance and in anticipation of the time when the person making the request may face suffering and other circumstances that may make them eligible for medical assistance in death. An advance request would set out conditions under which an individual requests MAID to be provided at a future date. Advance requests are premised on the likelihood that when people's health circumstances deteriorate to the point where they would want an assisted death, they would no longer have the capacity to affirm their decision immediately before receiving medical assistance in dying. In other words, that critical requirement of giving final consent would not be possible.Many people express the desire to make an advance request so they have the comfort of knowing they will be able to avoid a lengthy period of grievous suffering for themselves and for their families. This is in the event they succumb to an illness that could leave them severely impaired and lacking cognitive capacity for a lengthy time period.The CCA report helped unpack advance requests, in a way that really was helpful, by outlining several scenarios of increasing complexity. The first scenario involves an individual at the end of life who has been assessed as eligible for medical assistance in dying, but fears losing capacity while waiting to receive it. This is the situation experienced by Audrey Parker from Nova Scotia who chose to receive MAID earlier than she had wanted in fear of losing her eligibility status.The second scenario involves an individual who has been diagnosed with a serious condition, but does not yet qualify for medical assistance in dying.The third scenario involves an individual who wants to plan for various future outcomes, prior to any diagnosis.The report indicated that when the request is farther in advance of the procedure, it becomes more challenging for health care providers to be certain that the request still reflects the wishes of the individual. The report found that the first scenario poses the least risk and is relatively straightforward. Canadians expressed a great deal of support for this scenario in the federal consultations and it is also widely supported by experts and practitioners.Our proposed amendments in Bill C-7 would permit this type of advance request. This means that an individual who has a reasonably foreseeable natural death, and who is assessed and approved for medical assistance in dying, can wait for their chosen date without worrying about losing decision-making capacity. If the person does lose capacity prior to that date, they would still receive medical assistance in dying on the requested date or earlier, as expressed in their advance wish. It also means that individuals no longer need to reduce required pain medications and endure additional suffering in order to maintain their capacity to consent right before the procedure.However, the other two scenarios, where significantly more time passes between preparing a request and medical assistance in dying provision, are far more complex and challenging.I want to point out that we have definitely made movement on that first aspect. It is in those other two aspects where there is significantly more debate, and those need to be taken care of by Parliament in the coming months, which is exactly what this bill provides for.C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Capacity of consent for careCouncil of Canadian AcademiesExpert panelsGovernment billsHealth care systemLiving willsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSecond reading606725960672606067261PabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-MercierGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105598BradRedekoppBrad-RedekoppSaskatoon WestConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RedekoppBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC): (1540)[English]Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak on Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding medical assistance in dying.My office has received about 135 phone calls, emails or letters so far on this issue, and I recognize that this is a very touchy, personal and non-partisan issue.I will begin with a quick bit of history. The MAID legislation came into law in June 2016. Recently, one judge in Quebec ruled that the wording in the legislation on “foreseeable death” was too restrictive. The Liberal government was very quick to accept this ruling. It chose not to appeal, and instead moved to rewrite the legislation taking into account the decision of the court. This caused me to compare this ruling to the recent Alberta court ruling in which four judges found the carbon tax to be unconstitutional. It made me wonder if the government is going to be as quick to accept the Alberta court ruling as well and not appeal it, but that is a digression. As I said, MAID is a very touchy, personal and non-partisan issue. One can always find examples of people for whom MAID legislation is a difficult but welcome option. Unfortunately, those simple examples are usually in the minority. Far more often, it is much more complicated than that. The stories I have heard reflect these complications, such as the case where families are caught by surprise with a death and then forced to deal with the aftermath of that. There are cases where a person is at a particularly low point in their health but, under this proposed legislation, would be able to request and receive MAID with no waiting period. There are cases where physicians or hospital officials apply pressure on individuals to consider MAID. For example, Roger Foley, an Ontario man who is suffering from an incurable neurological disease, said that the medical staff repeatedly offered him MAID, despite his repeated requests to live at home. There is also the B.C. case of Ms. S. Dr. Wiebe lamented the profound suffering of Ms. S. but felt that Ms. S. was not eligible for an assisted death. Then, unfortunately, Ms. S. decided to starve herself. Dr. Wiebe and another doctor then determined that, due to the severe malnutrition and dehydration of Ms. S., her natural death was reasonably foreseeable, so Dr. Wiebe euthanized her on March 2017. According to a Globe and Mail article, this case is the first to be made public in which a medical regulator has ruled on the contentious question of whether doctors should grant assisted death to patients who only satisfy all the criteria of the federal law after they have stopped eating and drinking. It is not difficult to imagine a situation where a hospital will, for reasons of efficiency, encourage its staff to suggest MAID to patients with chronically difficult and complex cases. It is not a simple problem. It is a very complex problem.What bothers me about this is that the government is pre-empting the parliamentary review process that was specified in the legislation. We know that the current justice minister voted against the party on the original legislation because he felt that it did not go far enough. Now, as justice minister, he is able to make the changes that he desired. This is troubling, because he is choosing to pre-empt the legislated review process and get his desired changes into legislation without consultation. The existing law mandates the review of the legislation every five years, and the review will happen in just a few months. Why is the government is such a rush to make substantive changes to this legislation and pre-empt the legislated review process? To me, it makes far more sense to deal with the specific issue raised by the Quebec judge only, then do a proper consultation with Canadians this summer and propose changes based on that. Instead, the government had an extensive online survey that lasted two weeks. While it received a lot of responses, I think it just proves that there is great interest, and Canadians have a lot to say about this issue. So far, the results of these responses have not been shared, and I ask for these responses to be shared. I call on the government to do the right thing and leave any changes beyond what the Quebec judge has asked for until the completion of the review process later this year.Since we are talking about changes to this legislation, I want to talk about palliative care. There are calls for a pan-Canadian strategy on palliative care. I think it is convenient to point to the provinces and say that this is their problem, but there cannot be a full end-of-life strategy without funds and laws around palliative care. The government broke a key election promise to invest $3 billion in long-term care, including palliative care. Access to palliative care is an essential part of end-of-life decision-making. I have a personal example from Saskatoon, which has 12 palliative care beds for an area with over 300,000 people. (1545)My mother-in-law had a terminal disease. In her case, MAID was neither requested nor desired. She was fortunate in that her death was relatively quick, and by some miracle she was able to get one of those 12 beds in Saskatoon. It should not take a miracle to get good end-of-life care. It should not be that MAID is the only reasonable solution at the end of life because palliative care is not available. Therefore, I call on the government to put as much effort into palliative care as it has into MAID.Another significant area of concern is conscience protection. Physicians and health professionals must be given strong conscience rights. They must be free to not participate and be free of penalty or harassment for making that choice. They must also be free to not be required to refer to another health professional. They must have full conscience protection.Further, it must be recognized that the conscience objection of institutions must be protected. Institutions are not bricks and mortar. They are collections of people with values. Therefore, institutions must also be given the right of conscience protection. Several Supreme Court cases are instructive here. The Supreme Court in 2015, in the Loyola case, stated:Religious freedom under the Charter must therefore account for the socially embedded nature of religious belief, and the deep linkages between this belief and its manifestation through communal institutions and traditions. In another 2015 decision, the Supreme Court stated:A neutral public space free from coercion, pressure and judgment on the part of public authorities in matters of spirituality is intended to protect every person’s freedom and dignity, and it helps preserve and promote the multicultural nature of Canadian society.We must respect the multicultural nature of Canadian society. We must respect both medical professionals and institutions, and allow them to have full conscience protections free from harassment and consequences.There are some specific changes proposed that I am concerned about. The current legislation includes a 10-day waiting period between when MAID is requested and when it can be administered. The current legislation already allows for this waiting period to be waived. It states that if two medical practitioners:...are both of the opinion that the person's death, or the loss of their capacity to provide informed consent, is imminent—any shorter period that the first medical practitioner or nurse practitioner considers appropriate [can be used] in the circumstances. There already is a provision to deal with this issue. There is no need to make changes. The situation has been contemplated and addressed in the current legislation. Another area of concern is the lack of safeguards for the mentally ill. Mental illness is a very complex situation. Patients diagnosed with an underlying mental health challenge are not required to undergo a psychiatric assessment by a psychiatric professional to determine whether they have the capacity to consent. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the issues of mental health. However, it is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which a person is in a particularly dark period and considers MAID. It may well be that with proper professional help that person can work through the darkness and emerge a bit better. This may not always be the case, but that is why having a general waiting period is so important. It eliminates the ability of medical professionals or others to make a quick decision that they regret. A poll in January found that Saskatchewan and Manitoba had the lowest support in the country for MAID. In 2018, in Saskatchewan, only 67 of 172 applicants for MAID actually received medically assisted death. Some were declined, some withdrew and some died before the request could be completed. In summary, I would make the following observations. Most importantly, in the words of a constituent I spoke with this week, “We need to slow this down, not speed it up.” Yes, we need to deal with the Quebec court decision, but that only requires one change. There is a legislated review that will happen this summer. Let us wait for a proper consultation and use that lens to view any proposed changes. Let us have a pan-Canadian strategy for palliative care. Let us put full conscience protection in place for physicians and health care professionals. Let us put conscience protection in place for institutions. Let us leave the 10-day waiting period and the ability to create exceptions the way it is. Let us deal with the Quebec court decision and leave the rest until after the legislated review this summer. Let us slow this down. Application processC-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Canada Health TransferCaregivers and health care professionalsDoctorsFreedom of conscience and religionGovernment billsHealth care systemHospitalsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPalliative carePublic consultationSecond readingStatutory reviewTerminal illnesses60673486067349LarryMaguireBrandon—SourisArifViraniParkdale—High Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88705KamalKheraKamal-KheraBrampton WestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KheraKamal_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Kamal Khera (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, Lib.): (1555)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House to speak today about Bill C-7. This bill would amend the medical assistance in dying regime in the Criminal Code to address the Superior Court of Québec's decision in the Truchon case. As members know, in September 2019, the Quebec Superior Court struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the medical assistance in dying, or MAID, regime in the Criminal Code. Our government has made significant efforts to consult and engage with Canadians in order to inform the proposed approach to address this decision and amend the MAID regime in Canada.An online consultation was launched, and over 300,000 responses were received from Canadians. In addition, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion had the opportunity, along with their parliamentary secretaries, to meet with stakeholders and experts across the country during a series of round tables all over Canada. These consultations were an extremely important part of the development of Bill C-7. Medical assistance in dying is a sensitive and challenging social issue that we are currently faced with, one that is deeply personal for very many people and for me personally. I worked as an oncology nurse at St. Joseph's hospital in Toronto and have seen end-of-life care first-hand. I have seen individuals making difficult end-of-life decisions for themselves or their loved ones, and I appreciate our government's decision to consult and listen carefully to Canadians on this issue.In addition to being deeply personal, the issue of medical assistance in dying is also legally and ethically complex, which is why it was so important for our government to meet with experts, stakeholders and practitioners during the round tables. Our government listened. It listened to the health care experts, doctors, nurses, legal scholars and regulators, but most importantly, it listened to Canadians. The bill takes into account what was learned during these consultations and responds to the Truchon ruling by proposing amendments to the Criminal Code that would ensure consistency of the MAID law across the country by broadening eligibility, and adjusting the safeguards accordingly, for a MAID regime that is no longer limited to end-of-life circumstances. Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Truchon ruling in three ways. The first is by expanding eligibility to those whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable but who are still experiencing intolerable suffering. This will give those who are suffering in a wider range of situations the choice of a medically assisted death. At the same time, the amendments would exclude those suffering from only a mental illness. This is in response to very specific concerns voiced by experts and mental health professionals about eligibility on the basis of a mental illness. Many members will also recall that during the study of former Bill C-14, the government asked the Council of Canadian Academies to look into such cases. The experts in this field could not come to a consensus on this very complicated issue in their report on the subject, which was released and tabled in this chamber in December 2018. Our government recognizes that the unique considerations for the availability of MAID for individuals experiencing suffering only from mental illness requires further discussion and public debate. I believe the parliamentary review that will begin in June 2020 is the appropriate forum for the further consultation and deliberation that are needed before considering any changes in this regard.The second main feature of this bill is the creation of two sets of safeguards to be followed before medical assistance in dying is provided, depending on whether a person's natural death is reasonably foreseeable or not. (1600)The bill would continue to use the expression “reasonably foreseeable natural death” as the element that determines which safeguards to use. This approach for a MAID request is consistent with the view that medical assistance in dying for people whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable presents more complexity. Many experts believe that the assessment of a request should be tailored to these different types of cases. New safeguards for those whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable will focus on ensuring that assessments take adequate time and involve the relevant expertise to detect and address the sources of the person's suffering. They will also ensure that people receive information about the appropriate and available services and options to improve their quality of life. They will need to give serious consideration to those options before concluding that medical assistance in dying is the choice for them.Finally, the bill would relax some of the existing safeguards, in particular for those whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable. Those whose deaths are reasonably foreseeable will not need to undergo the 10-day reflection period. These individuals have already given a lot of thought to their request before they made it, and requiring them to wait another 10 days after they have been approved for medical assistance in dying may prolong their suffering unnecessarily. Just as importantly, the bill proposes to permit the requirement of final consent to be waived in the case of people whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable when certain conditions are met. These conditions are that the patient's death must be reasonably foreseeable; they must have been assessed and approved for medical assistance in dying in accordance with all safeguards; they are at risk of losing decision-making capacity before their preferred date to receive medical assistance in dying; and they have a written arrangement with their practitioner, in which they have given consent in advance to medical assistance in dying being administered if they lose capacity, and in which the practitioner agrees to provide medical assistance in dying on their preferred date, or earlier, if they can no longer provide the final consent. These proposed amendments would also clarify that practitioners would not be allowed, in this situation, to provide medical assistance in dying if the patient demonstrates refusal or resistance by words, sounds or gestures.For individuals whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, the remaining criteria defining the grievous and irremediable medical condition in the Criminal code would expand eligibility to medical assistance in dying to people with a wide range of conditions. A grievous and irremediable medical condition is defined in the code as a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability; an advanced state of irreversible decline in capacity; or intolerable suffering that cannot be alleviated under conditions that the person considers acceptable. This means that a grievous and irremediable medical condition could include conditions producing chronic pain or other symptoms. Canada's medical assistance in dying regime would move away from being an end-of-life regime to becoming a regime in which MAID could be chosen to relieve unbearable suffering that occurs outside of the dying process.To conclude, the bill before us today proposes the amendments required by the Truchon decision. It also reflects what we heard in 300,000 responses to the online consultation. This is what we heard from stakeholders when the ministers and parliamentary secretaries held consultations from coast to coast to coast. It takes into account the opinions and input of health care professionals, doctors, nurses, legal scholars, provincial regulators, civil society, non-governmental advocacy organizations and those with lived experiences. The bill strives to achieve a balance between respecting personal autonomy and protecting vulnerable individuals. Perhaps most importantly, it respects the equality rights of all Canadians.For those reasons, I call on the members of the House to support this bill, send it to committee where it can be looked at even more thoroughly and make this a reality in Canada.Application processC-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Capacity of consent for careConsentGovernment billsHealth care systemHuman diseases and disordersLiving willsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPain and chronic painPublic consultationSecond readingTerminal illnessesTruchon v. Attorney General of Canada60673746067375BradRedekoppSaskatoon WestGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88929MajidJowhariMajid-JowhariRichmond HillLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JowhariMajid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Majid Jowhari (Richmond Hill, Lib.): (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to once again rise in this House and speak to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). This bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code provisions on medical assistance in dying, or MAID, in response to the Superior Court of Québec Truchon decision, which struck down the eligibility criterion that natural death be reasonably foreseeable.I would like to highlight five major components that stood out for me. First, it repeals the condition that a person's natural death be reasonably foreseeable, with the exception of patients whose sole underlying condition is mental health issues.Second, it introduces new safeguards in addition to existing ones for patients whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable.Third, it permits the waiver of the requirement for final consent, allowing patients to provide consent to health care practitioners in advance, in the event that their death is naturally foreseeable and they are at risk of losing capacity to consent.Fourth, it permits the waiver of the requirement for final consent if a patient chooses MAID by self-administration, in case complications arise following self-administration, such as a loss of capacity.Fifth, it modifies the MAID monitoring regime to require that health care providers and pharmacy technicians provide regulated information when assessing a patient's eligibility or when dispensing a substance for MAID.Over the last two days, many of my colleagues from both sides of this House intervened on a fair number of details. It gives me great pleasure to see that there is broad agreement that this legislation, with these amendments, gets voted in and move to the committee for further study.I rose in this House during the 42nd Parliament back in 2016, and shared my experience, which dealt with the tragic loss of my father as a result of stage 4 cancer back in 2014. Such assistance was not available to us and we saw the loss of dignity. We saw the loss of the person I called “my hero” losing the capacity to be able to function and lead our family, as well as the fact that his desire would have been met, had we had this type of assistance available.Also, as the chair of the all-party mental health caucus, I have been advocating, and our caucus has been advocating, for the consideration of mental health and the exclusion of that. I am pleased to see that that remains.As I was listening attentively to the interventions over the last two days, at times there were questions raised about why it took so long. Considering that, and considering that we are almost halfway through this debate, I decided to focus my intervention mainly on the journey that our government has gone through over the last four years. The key concepts within that journey are the challenges that we are faced with; the stakeholders that we engaged with; the consultations during the studies; and the implementation, successes and challenges we have had.Having said that, since the introduction of the legislation for medical assistance in dying in 2016, we have witnessed a steady increase in the number of Canadians and health care providers who have adopted this new regime. We have seen a relatively smooth integration of MAID assessments and delivery in end-of-life care service available across the country.The enactment of this historic legislation was just the beginning of our efforts. Our government has since been very active in supporting the implementation of MAID across Canada. The 2016 legislation included clear directives for action, including the need for government to initiate independent reviews on three complex issues not addressed in the bill back in 2016. Some of my colleagues before me touched on those complex issues.Rather than proceed too hastily, Parliament felt that it required more study and a review of available evidence. The government tasked the Council of Canadian Academies with undertaking these studies and that is where the journey started.(1635)The resulting report tabled in Parliament in 2018 reflected an extensive review of academic and policy research, stakeholder submissions and international expertise in all three areas. It documented a range of perspectives from health care professionals, academic disciplines, advocacy groups and indigenous leaders; hence, the stakeholders that we have engaged with. We expect dialogue on these issues to continue during the parliamentary review and, as I have indicated, I hope that everyone in the House votes for this so that we can move it to committee and continue this dialogue. Taking into account our federal system and division of responsibility for health care and criminal law, the federal government developed the monitoring and reporting regime to collect valuable information about requests for and the provision of MAID. In all other jurisdictions permitting assisted dying, there is an oversight and monitoring mechanism in place. The roles and responsibilities of these monitoring regimes vary. In the wake of this monumental shift toward legalized assisted dying, Canadians wanted to know what kind of uptake there would be. Some were keen to know how accessible MAID would be across this vast country. Others want to know how safeguards would be applied and if there were protections in place for the vulnerable. Our government worked quickly with the provinces and territories to establish an interim reporting system, collecting and reporting on the best data available.I want to acknowledge our provincial and territorial partners that had the challenging task of arranging safe access to MAID services from scratch, in a short period of time and in collaboration with multiple partners, such as health care providers, professional associations and health care delivery institutions. This tremendous task involved setting standards of practice for physicians, nurse practitioners and pharmacists to support the consistent and safe delivery of MAID within a legally sound framework. It also helped minimize the disparity to access in rural and urban areas. Our government produced four interim reports using data voluntarily transferred by providers and various jurisdictions from 2016 until the creation of the permanent regime in late 2018. These reports covered a six-month period and provided information on the number of MAID deaths, patient demographic information, underlying medical conditions and predicted MAID requests. In reviewing these reports, we know that the awareness of MAID as a legal option is growing. There appears to be a growing comfort among health care providers. In the interim period, our government worked to establish a permanent national monitoring and reporting system as considered in Bill C-14.Through stakeholder consultation and collaboration with provinces and territories, the government enacted federal monitoring regulations in late 2018. These regulations set out the reporting requirements for all physicians, nurse practitioners and pharmacists who participate in MAID. We were mindful of balancing the need for information while limiting the reporting burden on health care providers and avoiding duplication of effort. This system has been operating for just over a year. Late this spring, our government plans to release the first annual report using data from this new monitoring system.Budget 2017 announced $11 billion over 10 years to support home and community care services, including palliative care, mental health and addiction services; $6 billion was specifically allocated to those services I talked about. In 2019, our government worked with all the provinces and territories to develop the framework for palliative care in Canada, which I consider a cornerstone of this bill. Over the last three and half years that MAID has been available, our government has worked to support a smooth integration into the health care system based on the foundation I have just laid out. On the evidence that we have gathered, we have put together a bill that represents the Truchon decision and addresses other issues where there is clear consensus and a reasonable path forward. It is my hope that, after due consideration and debate, we move this bill to committee. I will close by saying that I support this bill and I thank all members for intervening on this topic.AccountabilityApplication processC-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Canada Health TransferCollaborative health careCouncil of Canadian AcademiesExpert panelsFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsHealth care systemInformation collectionMedical assistance in dyingMental healthOversight mechanismSecond readingTruchon v. Attorney General of Canada6067465RachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverPatKellyCalgary Rocky Ridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98079DaneLloydDane-LloydSturgeon River—ParklandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LloydDane_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Dane Lloyd: (1655)[English]Mr. Speaker, as parliamentarians it is incumbent upon us to draft responsible legislation that protects the sanctity of life, protects those contemplating suicide and protects vulnerable peoples. These are principles that were outlined in the preamble to Bill C-14, the landmark legislation that governs assisted dying in this country. These are principles that, although largely restated in Bill C-7, are being watered down and undermined by this legislation. As recently as the early 1990s, in the landmark Rodriguez case, the court ruled that there was no constitutional right to assisted dying in this country. The Carter decision overruled that previous decision, and now Parliament has the difficult task of balancing the autonomy of Canadians with our responsibility to create safeguards for vulnerable Canadians. It is one of our most sacred responsibilities to protect the lives of our citizens. We need to get laws on assisted dying right.The adoption of medical assistance in dying after the 2015 election is an event I am very familiar with. I had the honour of serving under the member for St. Albert—Edmonton as he took the lead as the Conservative vice-chair of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying. During this time, I was involved in all aspects of the committee that was making recommendations on a new law. I heard from all the witnesses, and I listened to all deliberations regarding what direction our country should take. That committee recommended a radical departure with very few safeguards. These recommendations did not reflect the testimony of experts, but instead the political agenda of special interests. The Conservative minority report provided at the joint committee was entrenched firmly in the principles of the Supreme Court's decision in Carter, and included recommendations that were laid out by key witnesses, such as the former president of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, Dr. Karandeep Sonu Gaind. It outlined key principles for us on the issue of physician-assisted dying.These included not accepting the provision that assistance in dying be provided to those under the age of 18, in line with the Carter decision, which stated that only competent adults should be allowed access to assisted dying. We also did not accept the extension of medical assistance in dying for those suffering exclusively from mental illnesses. We did not believe that any mental illness is irremediable, as the Canadian Psychiatric Association stated. We also did not believe in the validity of advance directives to allow Canadians to consent to an assisted death far in advance of its administration. This change would stand opposed to the express will of the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that consent must be contemporaneous with the time of death.We also recognized the lessons of the Quebec experience, as the first jurisdiction in this country to legalize euthanasia. In its regime, medical assistance in dying could only be rendered on adults with a severe, incurable physical illness, characterized by an advanced state of irreversible decline.I believe many Canadians can sympathize with this limited exception for assistance in dying; however, even these safeguards have proved to be short-lived. Barely five years later, the courts and the government have decided that these safeguards are far too restrictive. How did we get here today? Barely had the ink dried on Bill C-14 before proponents of expanded assisted dying launched their campaign to eliminate necessary safeguards. As a Conservative who strongly believes in the sanctity of human life, Bill C-14 was a difficult pill to swallow. However, it was one that I believed upheld many of the values that I hold and the values that many of my constituents hold. The previous legislation recognized that we must tread carefully with this new reality of assisted dying. It introduced safeguards that limited mature minors, those with exclusively mental illnesses and those whose deaths were not reasonably foreseeable. I believe this is where the majority of Canadians are, and I believe the government largely got the balance right under Bill C-14. Unfortunately, there are a radical, vocal few who want to undermine even these protections and push this country headlong into a permissive regime for assisted dying, a regime that, as we know from international experience, has resulted in the deaths of vulnerable people. If we continue to go down this road and liberalize all safeguards, we will continue to see mistakes and deliberate actions that end the lives of vulnerable people. This new legislation outlined in Bill C-7, although not taking these large, radical steps that I outlined, is opening the door to a wider radical departure from principles like the protection of the vulnerable and the sanctity of human life. I am particularly concerned about the inclusion of the term and policy of advance consent. (1700)The Supreme Court of Canada was very clear, crystal clear, that an assisted death should only be administered with the consent of a person at the time of death. We know that there are some cases where people fear losing their capacity to end their lives. However, we cannot allow the precedent of advance consent to gain legitimacy in our system. Advance consent in this legislation I believe is a Trojan horse designed to build the legal case to accept the adoption of advance directives.Advance directives are a concept by which people can direct the actions of medical professionals after they have ceased to have the capacity to consent to an assisted death. Many Canadians are familiar with DNRs: do-not-resuscitate orders. DNRs are a completely ethical and morally acceptable practice, whereby a patient can designate that no action should be taken to attempt resuscitation. By respecting the will of the patient and not acting, medical professionals are allowing the patient to die a natural death. Medical professionals can also hasten the natural death of their patient through pain remediation. I believe this is also an acceptable practice. I support do-not-resuscitate orders, and I think many Canadians are being deliberately misled into believing that an advance directive is the moral and ethical equivalent of a DNR. It is not. An advance directive does not ask medical professionals to withhold action allowing a natural death. It requires medical professionals to take direct action to immediately end the life of the patient. This is a leap in practice that goes far beyond what I believe is ethical. It undermines one of the greatest medical principles: first, do no harm. I can imagine, in a not-so-distant future, someone with dementia or Alzheimer's who had previously written an advance directive, believing that life would be not worth living with this disease. Imagine in the future that we had the medical expertise and the breakthrough pharmaceuticals that could make life better for those suffering. How can someone consent to have life end without contemporaneous consent at the time of death, when they cannot know what their quality of life will be?It introduces a high level of subjectivity to the question about what kind of life is a life worth living. This is a dangerous question that will lead us down a lethal road, a road that I do not think anyone wants to go down today. I believe it is unethical and dangerous to allow someone's life to be ended by an advance directive or consent, even with the meagre protections offered in Bill C-7, which includes a provision that no resistance be shown. There is still a threat of abuse. If people are unable to understand and consent to death, how are they supposed to know to resist when someone comes to administer their death? Parliament is being rushed into liberalizing a practice that is not even half a decade old. Its members lack the experience, the data and the moral understanding to press forward with such a life-and-death issue. I am disappointed that the government abdicated its responsibility to stand up for vulnerable people when it chose not even to appeal the Quebec court's decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. What better court to clarify what safeguards are acceptable than the very court that originally dealt with these significant matters? Instead, the government has given Parliament little time to contemplate such an important issue. Canadians are still catching up to the reality of assisted dying being legal in this country, and now we are foolishly pressing forward before we can fully understand the impacts of this legalization. Appeals and appeals officersC-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Capacity of consent for careConsentGovernment billsHealth care systemLiving willsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthOversight mechanismSecond readingTerminal illnessesVulnerable personsYoung people6067538BruceStantonSimcoe NorthJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—Guildwood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25449YasminRatansiYasmin-RatansiDon Valley EastIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/RatansiYasmin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): (1710)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-7, which proposes amendments to the Criminal Code's medical assistance in dying regime, in response to the Superior Court of Quebec's Truchon decision. I will provide the context for the change.As we know, in September 2019, the Superior Court of Quebec struck down the federal and Quebec criteria that limit the access to MAID based on circumstances where death is reasonably foreseeable. The court, whose ruling only applies in Quebec, suspended its declaration of invalidity for six months, until March 11, 2020. On February 17, the Attorney General of Canada filed a motion to request a four-month extension to give Parliament the time needed to implement a response and ensure that the law across the country is consistent as it relates to the federal MAID regime.I will provide a brief overview of the amendments to the Criminal Code that are being proposed under Bill C-7.First, on the eligibility criteria, the bill would repeal the reasonably foreseeable natural death criteria and exclude persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. Second, with regard to safeguards, the bill would create two sets of safeguards, depending on whether a person's death is reasonably foreseeable, while easing some existing safeguards and adding new ones for persons whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. Finally, the bill proposes to allow for a waiver of final consent on the day of the procedure in specific circumstances.How did these changes materialize? The development of this legislation was informed by the Truchon decision; available Canadian and international reports, such as the December 2018 report of the Council of Canadian Academies; the experience of existing international regimes; and our government's recent consultation on MAID, held in January and early February.The Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, along with their parliamentary secretaries, hosted several federal MAID round tables across the country. These events were attended by experts and stakeholders, including doctors, nurse practitioners, representatives from health regulatory bodies, legal experts, representatives of the disability community, indigenous representatives and other key stakeholders. They shared their experience and insight into MAID and its implementation in Canada over the last four years.In parallel to these efforts, our government heard from over 300,000 Canadians who participated in the online public survey on MAID between January 23 and 27, 2020. There was an unprecedented number of respondents, reflecting the significance of this issue for Canadians. This kind of input is invaluable to government and, I am certain, was seriously considered by the ministers in the development of the bill. I would like to provide a personal perspective on the issue of MAID in its previous iteration.In 2015, when the Liberal government came to power, it was tasked by the Supreme Court to amend MAID. A special joint committee was established, involving both Houses and all parties. The special joint committee conducted an enormous amount of consultation and came up with a proposal. The then minister of justice and minister of health were presented with this proposal. Through intense discussions and consultations, the proposal was amended. In my riding of Don Valley East, I did a consultation in the sanctuary of the Donway Covenant United Church. Various constituents, as well as other members from across Toronto, participated in the town hall. Members of CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, were also on the panel. It was an emotional meeting. I clearly remember one of my constituents, who was non-verbal and had to use her communication board, telling me that she wanted advance directives while she was lucid but could not predict whether she would be lucid in the foreseeable future.In 2019, I had to do another presentation at a church in another riding. Here, overwhelmingly the audience was against the phrase “foreseeable future” and also wanted advance directives.(1715)I am glad to see that some of the changes requested through consultations have now been incorporated. I look forward to the five-year review that is scheduled for June 2020 to see the discussions around advance directives.I will now go to the bill itself and some of the changes it proposes to the eligibility criteria.With regard to the proposed Criminal Code amendments in relation to eligibility, the bill proposes to make two changes to the current set of eligibility criteria for MAID. First, it would repeal the reasonable foreseeability of natural death criteria from the list of eligibility criteria in response to the Truchon ruling. That is good news for some of my constituents in Don Valley East. The legal effect of this amendment would be that those whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and those whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable would be eligible for MAID if they met all other eligible criteria.Second, the bill proposes to exclude people whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness. Many practitioners, stakeholders and experts have identified increased complexities regarding individuals seeking MAID whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. I suggest that this could be an item for Parliament to look at it in its upcoming mandatory five-year review of the MAID regime.The Council of Canadian Academies' experts group issued a report in 2018 on the same issue and could not come to a consensus on this question. The Government of Quebec has also announced that access to MAID for cases where mental illness is the sole underlying condition would be suspended and that a broad consultation process would be conducted on this issue.Regarding safeguards, the public needs to know some of the safeguards that will protect the vulnerable. With respect to the applicable safeguards proposed, the proposed Criminal Code amendment would create two different sets of safeguards depending on whether a person's natural death is expected in the near term or not. The first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons who have a reasonably foreseeable death where risks are reduced. The second set of safeguards would be tailored to persons whose death is not reasonably foreseeable and would address the elevated risks associated with the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could lead a person who is not nearing death to seek access to MAID, such as loneliness, isolation, lack of adequate supports and hopelessness.Bill C-7 proposes to use the reasonable foreseeability of natural death standard to determine which set of safeguards applies to a particular case. This standard would also determine whether a person who is assessed and approved for MAID but who risks dying before the day of the procedure can give consent in advance. I will be discussing that proposal shortly.How will these safeguards be applied? Specifically, it would require that a MAID request be witnessed by one independent witness instead of two, and it would allow individuals who are paid to provide either health or personal care to act as an independent witness.On the advance consent or directives, the bill proposes amendments that would allow people who have a reasonably foreseeable natural death, and who have been assessed and approved for MAID, to retain their ability to receive MAID if they lose the capacity to consent.The bill represents a significant paradigm shift in Canada's legal landscape with regard to medical assistance in dying. I call on members to support this important legislation and send it to committee for further review.Application processC-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Capacity of consent for careCaregivers and health care professionalsGovernment billsHealth care systemLiving willsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPublic consultationSecond readingTerminal illnessesTruchon v. Attorney General of CanadaVulnerable persons60675836067584DaneLloydSturgeon River—ParklandTamaraJansenCloverdale—Langley City//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88323DarrenFisherDarren-FisherDartmouth—Cole HarbourLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FisherDarren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (1810)[English]Madam Speaker, medical assistance in dying, or MAID, is complex. It is a deeply personal and difficult topic, yet this past January alone, more than 300,000 Canadians took part in the online public consultation to have their say. Many others, including experts and family members of loved ones who received MAID, took part in round-table discussions. We also heard how the legislation is working from many of the conscientious health care providers involved in delivering this service. Canadians are engaged and aware of the importance of bringing the compassionate, sensible measures contained within Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).This bill builds on the foundation laid by the current legislation on MAID, passed by Parliament in June 2016, and extends eligibility for MAID to persons who, while suffering intolerably, may not be at the end of life. This bill respects the Truchon decision and supports the autonomy of Canadians wanting to make an informed choice to end the suffering they face as a result of serious illness, regardless of whether their condition is life-threatening in the near term.Respecting the autonomy of Canadians while protecting the safety of vulnerable people remains our central objective. That is why Bill C-7 proposes a two-track approach to safeguards, based on whether or not a person's death is reasonably foreseeable.We have proposed to ease certain safeguards that had the unintended consequence of creating a barrier for someone accessing MAID whose death is deemed reasonably foreseeable, and we will introduce new and modified safeguards for eligible persons whose death is not reasonably foreseeable.Bill C-7 would permit the waiving of final consent for persons at the end of life who have been already assessed and approved to receive MAID, but who are at risk of losing their decision-making capacity before it can be provided. There was very strong support for this type of amendment from Canadians, experts, health care providers and their professional regulating bodies. Our government recognizes the importance of data and science-based evidence in the decision-making process. That is why this bill proposes that we expand data collection through the federal monitoring regime to provide a more complete picture of MAID in Canada.I would like to note that following the Truchon decision there has been widespread speculation about the potential for persons solely with mental illness to be eligible for MAID. However, many stakeholders in the mental health community have expressed deep concern about this possibility. They feel this option directly conflicts with important treatment principles, which are that there is always hope for recovery and that people can live fulfilling lives with a mental illness.From the perspective of many health care providers and many health care specialists, assessing eligibility for such individuals poses numerous challenges. Mental illnesses are not generally considered to be incurable, which is a requirement under the current law. In addition, the trajectory of such conditions can be more difficult to predict. In light of the multiple challenges we heard and the lack of support from the practitioner community who would bear the responsibility for conducting eligibility assessments, this bill does not permit MAID for persons whose sole medical condition is a mental illness.This decision was not taken lightly. It in no way implies that suffering associated with mental illness is any less severe or more tolerable than that associated with another medical condition, such as one arising from a physical condition. Rather, this decision reflects the many uncertainties underlying this question and a concern that allowing MAID in these circumstances could place Canadians at risk.We recognize that there are proponents who support MAID eligibility for persons solely with a mental illness. However, in light of the Quebec court decision and the compressed time frame for legislative amendments, there is insufficient time to fully address this topic and determine whether a regime that allows access to MAID for persons whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness is viable.For these reasons, we are adopting an incremental and cautious approach. It is our view that this issue should be explored as part of the parliamentary review process, which is expected to begin later this year.It is easy as parliamentarians and as legislators to lose the human element of what we do and to focus on talking points and politics, but these compassionate and sensible measures have come from extensive consultation with Canadians, experts and folks who have lived with the unintended consequences of the original legislation.(1815)These are folks like the late Audrey Parker, a Nova Scotian who wanted to spend just one last Christmas with her family but ended her life through MAID two months prior, while she could still give consent.I want to take this time to read some of Audrey Parker's final posts into the record so they will be preserved in Hansard, because this legislation includes her amendment. As my colleagues in the House debate, discuss and study the bill, I want them to remember that there are many folks like Audrey across Canada who deserve this autonomy and this compassion.She said:“This is my last note to you. I can tell you I loved my life so much and I have no regrets. I feel like I’m leaving as my best self and I’m ready to see what happens when I die today. I’m hoping for something exciting to happen but I guess I won’t know until the time is here.“The one thing I’m happiest about, is that I finally found ‘my people’ during my lifetime. I’ve even met new people that I already adore near the end of my journey so it’s never too late for anything in life.“In the spirit of teaching and sharing, I’d like to leave you with some words that explain my position with MAID.“When the MP’s debated MAID federally, someone decided to add late stage consent as a fail-safe to ensure no one dies at the hand of another.“There are four categories of MAID candidates.... Of the four categories, the only one that is cut and dried is my category of Assessed and Approved. We are terminal, suffering outrageous pain and there is no time frame with using MAID. The kicker that makes it difficult is the late stage consent. “As I near my death today, it is even more evident than ever before, that late stage consent has got to be amended and removed from MAID in Canada for my category of end users.” “Dying is a messy business. I can’t predict when cancer will move into my brain matter or when something else big happens to make me more unwell. I and only I can make that decision for myself. It’s about living out every extra day that I can. No one including my doctor knows what the right day to die will be. Only I can know that as I wake each day. I’m not going to wait until I lose myself.... I wanted to make it to Christmas and New Year’s Eve... my favorite time of the year but I lost that opportunity because of a poorly thought out federal law.“Had late stage consent been abolished, I simply would have taken my life one day at a time. If I noticed I was losing capacity, I would have taken control myself....and called my doctor to come assist me with my death. All I have to give is 24 hours notice so she can pick up the drugs from the drug store in my neighborhood. We were totally organized but the law tied our hands. “This decision has to come from the patient. No one else. That’s why we the dying should be living day to day until we have to leave by invoking MAID.“Be happy everyone and be kind to others.... Audrey.”I ask that all members in the House support Bill C-7.C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Capacity of consent for careGovernment billsHealth care systemInformation collectionLiving willsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthOversight mechanismSecond readingTerminal illnessesTruchon v. Attorney General of Canada60677366067737606773860677396067740KellyBlockCarlton Trail—Eagle CreekGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionHon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice, Lib.)(1555)[Translation] moved that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.Bill C-7. Second readingHe said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding medical assistance in dying.[English]The bill proposes a legislative response to the Superior Court of Québec's Truchon decision, as well as some other changes to the Criminal Code provisions that set out Canada's medical assistance in dying regime.In June 2016, former Bill C-14 amended the Criminal Code to create Canada's first law on medical assistance in dying, or MAID. The legislation created exemptions to Criminal Code offences so that individuals suffering unbearably and nearing the end of their lives could die peacefully and with the help of a physician or nurse practitioner, rather than in agony or in circumstances that they considered undignified.This significant change in our criminal law was indicative of the value that Canadians ascribed to having choices, including about the manner and timing of their deaths when suffering in the dying process was intolerable. The most recent data obtained by the federal MAID-monitoring regime indicates that over 13,000 Canadians have received MAID since it has become decriminalized.[Translation]We are now proposing another important change to our criminal law. In Truchon and Gladu, the Quebec Superior Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to limit access to medical assistance in dying to persons whose death is reasonably foreseeable. (1600)We decided not to appeal the decision because we want to reduce the suffering of people waiting for medical assistance in dying.When we announced our decision not to appeal the ruling, our government also committed to changing the eligibility criteria for medical assistance in dying throughout Canada to ensure that criminal law is consistent nationwide. Application of the court's ruling, which is limited to Quebec, was suspended for six months. The deadline is March 12. Because these issues are so important and because we want to ensure that our laws are consistent all across Canada, we have asked the court for a four-month extension, which would give Parliament time to thoroughly consider and debate the amendments proposed in this bill. There was a hearing yesterday regarding this request. Consulting Canadians about the next phase of medical assistance in dying in Canada was crucial to drafting this bill. That is why we launched a two-week public consultation on January 13. The level of participation was unprecedented. We received over 300,000 responses, an indication of how important this issue is to Canadians.[English]At the same time, together with the Minister of Health, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion and our parliamentary secretaries, we held 10 round-table discussions across the country between January 13 and February 3. This included round tables in Halifax, Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver. We met over 125 individuals, including doctors, nurse practitioners, legal experts, members of the disability community, indigenous peoples, and representatives of health regulatory bodies and civil organizations.We are grateful to all who participated in the round tables. Their shared expertise and experiences were of immense value in developing this bill. I have no doubt that many will continue to engage in the parliamentary process as witnesses before committees.The results of this consultation process will be published shortly in a “what we heard” report. We heard views on many different topics, but I would like to mention just a few. From the public online consultations we heard that, while the majority of respondents think the current safeguards are adequate to prevent abuse, in a MAID regime that is expanded to persons who are not dying in the near term, a majority of respondents also thought it would be important to require additional safeguards in such a broader regime. Many round-table participants suggested two separate sets of safeguards in an expanded regime. Others shared their experiences with existing safeguards as they apply to those who are near the end of their lives.Specifically, many felt that the requirement for two witnesses when a person's written request was made was too onerous and afforded little protection, and that the 10-day reflection period unnecessarily prolonged suffering. Informed by these in-depth consultations, and by the Canadian experience with medical assistance in dying to date, along with many other sources of information, Bill C-7 proposes to respond to the Truchon decision by adjusting both the eligibility requirements and the safeguards. It also proposes to enable patients in certain circumstances to waive the requirement for final consent so that they do not lose their access to MAID.We know there are other issues about which many Canadians still feel strongly but which are not subject to the Superior Court of Québec's deadline, such as eligibility in cases where mental illness is the sole underlying condition, advanced requests and mature minors. These will be examined in the course of the upcoming parliamentary review.Before describing the proposed amendments, I would like to address the concerns we heard from many in the disability community following the Truchon decision and during our consultations. Disability groups were very clear that, for them, removing the end-of-life limit on MAID would create a law that holds disability as a valid reason for ending a life and reinforces the false perception that disability is equivalent to a life of suffering. Our government is sensitive to these concerns. We strongly support the equality of all Canadians, no matter their situation, and we categorically reject the idea that living with a disability is a fate worse than death. However, we are also mindful of the need to balance these concerns, along with others that have been expressed, with other important interests and societal values, in particular the importance of individual choice.The bill's objectives are therefore to recognize the autonomy of individuals to choose MAID as a means of relieving intolerable suffering, regardless of their proximity to natural death, while at the same time protecting vulnerable persons, recognizing that suicide is an important public health issue and affirming the inherent and equal value of every person's life. More concretely, Bill C-7 proposes to expand eligibility for medical assistance in dying beyond the end-of-life context by repealing the eligibility criteria requiring that natural death be reasonably foreseeable.Recognizing that intolerable suffering also arises outside of the end-of-life context and that Canadians want to have choices, medical assistance in dying would be become available to all those who are intolerably suffering; who have a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability; and who are in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability, without regard to whether they are dying in the short term.(1605)[Translation]At this time, the bill proposes that persons whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness not be eligible for medical assistance in dying. First, we are subject to a court-imposed deadline and this matter requires more in-depth review and debate. We have learned that the trajectory of a mental illness is more difficult to predict than that of most physical illnesses. This means that there is a greater risk of providing medical assistance in dying to people whose condition could improve. It is also more difficult to carry out competency assessments for individuals with a mental illness. In the case of some mental illnesses, the desire to die is itself a symptom of the illness, which makes it particularly difficult to determine whether the individual's request is truly voluntary.Like the Government of Quebec, we are of the opinion that we need to continue consultations, discussions and policy development on the issue of MAID requests based solely on mental illness.The parliamentary review that will be launched next June will be an appropriate forum for examining these issues, without the time constraints of the court-imposed deadline.[English]I would now like to turn my remarks to the question of safeguards. Many experts believe there are greater risks in assessing requests for MAID from individuals who are not nearing the end of their life. We agree. While these individuals would have a choice to seek MAID, the bill proposes that these requests be treated with greater sensitivity and care. Accordingly, the bill proposes two streams, or two sets of safeguards. To distinguish these cases the bill proposes to use the concept of reasonably foreseeable natural death. Let me be clear on this point. Not having a reasonably foreseeable death would no longer be grounds for rejecting a MAID request; however, it would be used to determine which of the two sets of safeguards are required in a given case.As enacted by Parliament in 2016, reasonable foreseeability of natural death refers to a death that is expected in the relative near term. It means that in light of all the person's medical circumstances, his or her death is expected in a relatively short period of time. Natural death is not reasonably foreseeable just because an individual is diagnosed with a condition that will eventually cause death many years or decades into the future. In practice we know that practitioners are more comfortable prognosticating when death is expected in shorter time frames. The standard of reasonably foreseeable natural death provides flexibility in a way that maximum fixed prognosis would not. The standard also has the advantage of using language that practitioners have become familiar with over the last four years.Those who are dying in the short or near term would benefit from the current set of safeguards in the Criminal Code, which the bill proposes to change in two ways. First, the 10-day reflection period would be eliminated. We heard during the consultations that most persons have already given their MAID request a lot of thought by the time they sign their written request, resulting in the reflection period unnecessarily prolonging suffering.Second, the requirement for two independent witnesses would be amended so that only one independent witness to the written MAID request is required. Further, we have added an exception so that health care and personal care workers who are not the person's provider or assessor would now be able to act as an independent witness.Again, we heard that it is difficult for some who live in long-term care facilities or in remote areas to locate two independent witnesses. The purpose of the independent witness is simply to verify the identity of the person signing the request. The witness is not involved in the assessment process.For persons whose death is not reasonably foreseeable, the existing safeguards would all apply with some additional ones. Specifically, the bill proposes a minimum 90-day assessment period, which will help ensure that practitioners spend sufficient time exploring the various dimensions of the person's MAID request, which, outside the end-of-life context, could be motivated by different sources of suffering requiring greater attention.Also, at least one of the practitioners assessing eligibility would have to have expertise in the condition that is causing the person's intolerable suffering. The safeguard aims to prevent people from obtaining MAID when something could have been done to relieve their suffering or improve their condition. The bill would also clarify the notion of informed consent for these kinds of cases. First, a person who is not dying would have to be informed of the means available to relieve suffering, including counselling services, mental health and disability support services, community services, and palliative care, and be offered consultations with professionals that provide these services. Second, the practitioners and the person would also have to agree that these means of relieving their suffering were discussed and seriously considered. (1610)[Translation]The bill also proposes to allow people whose death is reasonably foreseeable and who are eligible for medical assistance in dying to give prior consent if they risk losing capacity to consent before the date set for MAID. At present, the Criminal Code requires the practitioner to ensure, immediately before MAID is provided, that the person gives express consent to receiving MAID.The bill would enable a patient who has already been assessed and approved to enter into an advance consent arrangement with their physician that sets out all the relevant details, including the date selected for the provision of MAID and the fact that the person consents to receiving MAID in case they lose the capacity to consent by the day in question.Although this scenario was not covered in Truchon, experts told the government that it presents relatively little complexity and risk. Doctors also told us they would be comfortable with the idea of providing MAID under such circumstances.To our government, compassion means ensuring that people waiting for MAID do not lose their opportunity to die in the manner or on the date of their choosing just because their medical condition robs them of the capacity to make decisions in their final days.Another narrow form of advance consent would also be allowed in the unlikely event that complications arise after a person who has been assessed and approved self-administers a substance intended to cause their death and loses the capacity to consent to MAID, but does not die.The patient and their physician could enter into an arrangement in advance, stipulating that the physician would be present at the time the patient self-administers the substance and would administer a substance to cause the patient's death in case the patient loses their capacity but does not die.The data show that there have been very few cases of self-administration so far, perhaps due to fears of possible complications stemming from self-administration of a substance. Offering such an option could provide greater reassurance and allow more Canadians to choose this form of medical assistance in dying.(1615)[English]There are other changes in the bill that my colleagues will speak to, including changes to enhanced data collection and the monitoring regime that brings accountability and transparency to the practice of MAID in Canada.A transitional provision would ensure that patients who have already signed their request when the bill comes into force would not be required to undergo any additional safeguards set out in the bill. At the same time, they would be able to benefit from the safeguards that would be eased, such as the elimination of the 10-day reflection period and the possibility of preparing an advance consent arrangement if it applies to that person's situation. We are committed to making the process as easy on patients as possible.I would also like to briefly discuss the constitutionality of the bill. I have examined the bill as required by the Department of Justice Act. This involved consideration of the objectives and features of the bill. I am confident that the bill responds to the Truchon ruling in a way that respects the charter.As is required by the Department of Justice Act, I will table a charter statement in the near future, which will lay out some of the key considerations that informed the review of the bill for inconsistency with the charter. This will serve to better inform parliamentary debate on this important piece of legislation.[Translation]I will conclude by thanking all those who participated in the consultations on medical assistance in dying and who contributed to the drafting of this bill. Bill C-7's proposed amendments to Canada's medical assistance in dying regime represent a fundamental policy shift, with the regime becoming less about end-of-life care and more about autonomy and alleviating intolerable suffering.I look forward to working with all members of both chambers to ensure Bill C-7 is passed.Appeals and appeals officersApplication processC-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Caregivers and health care professionalsConsentConstitutionalityGovernment billsHealth care systemLegislative reviewLiving willsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPersons with disabilitiesPublic consultationSecond readingStatutory reviewTerminal illnessesTruchon v. Attorney General of Canada60639446063949606395060639516063952AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88910ArifViraniArif-ViraniParkdale—High ParkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViraniArif_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1800)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Kings—Hants.I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-7. I have some prepared remarks, and during the course of my comments, I will try to sprinkle in some responses to some of the various issues that have already been raised.Clearly, we are here because there was a decision of the Quebec Superior Court in the Truchon case. This decision struck down a particular criterion under both the Quebec regime and the Canadian regime with respect to the end-of-life nature of medical assistance in dying, this being the reasonable foreseeability of natural death criterion, in particular at the national level.The court's ruling only applies in Quebec. We heard the minister speaking about this. He suspended its declaration of invalidity for a period of six months, until March 11. It is important for this chamber to understand that on February 17 of this year, the Attorney General of Canada filed a motion to request an extension to give Parliament sufficient time to enact an appropriate response to ensure consistency in the criminal law. That motion was actually debated yesterday, and a decision from the court is forthcoming.Before I go into some of the details in this bill, I want to start off with two important provisions related to conscience protection that were raised by members of the official opposition in the context of this debate. I want the record to be crystal clear that conscience protections are robust in this country and are entrenched in the law. The first location is in the preamble to the old Bill C-14, which I will read. It states, “Whereas everyone has freedom of conscience and religion under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.I have had further questions from members of the official opposition about why it is only in the preamble and not in the statute. That assertion is wrong, because it is in the statute. Section 9 on page 8 of the old Bill C-14, which amended subsection 241.2(9) of the Criminal Code, says “For greater certainty, nothing in this section compels an individual to provide or assist in providing medical assistance in dying.”The third point I will read is from the Carter decision of the Supreme Court, which has been the subject of extensive discussion in this chamber thus far. I am reading from paragraph 132 of the majority reasons in Carter. The court states “In our view, nothing in the declaration of invalidity which we propose to issue would compel physicians to provide assistance in dying.”Those are three instances. One is jurisprudential and the other two are statutory. The fourth one is of course the broad penumbra that is cast by section 2 of the charter, which protects freedom of conscience for all Canadians, including those who practise medicine. Therefore, the assertion that somehow conscience rights are not protected or are somehow being eroded is categorically false.Another point in terms of what is being addressed in today's debate is the notion that a culture of overly facilitating medical assistance in dying is upon us, and that somehow this government bill is pushing us further toward predatory practices by health care practitioners or toward disavowing the right to life, liberty and security of persons who are vulnerable, including persons with disabilities. That is categorically false and is not commensurate with what is in evidence.The evidence we have is readily available in the technical briefing that was already provided to all members of Parliament. It is that in total, 13,000 MAID-assisted deaths have happened in this country in the last four years. The average age of people who are accessing MAID is 75 years old. It is being accessed equally by men and women, 51% by men and 49% by women. The most common medical condition is cancer, followed by neurological conditions, in that 67% of all people who access it have cancer. Second come neurological conditions and third come cardiovascular conditions.Very importantly, in the most recent year of analysis, a grand total of 5,444 people accessed MAID in this country. That represents 1.89% of all deaths in this country. I read that into the record because I think it is important for people to understand that there is not some sort of culture of medical assistance in dying that is being foisted upon unwitting individuals. I will elaborate on my reasons going forward.(1805)[Translation]I would like to talk about some aspects of the bill. The eligibility criteria have changed, as the Minister of Justice pointed out. There are two series of safeguards. The first applies to cases in which the person's death is reasonably foreseeable, while the other applies when death is not reasonably foreseeable. The bill would add new safeguards to that second category.Lastly, the bill allows a person to waive final consent on the day of the procedure in certain circumstances.[English]I will return to that in a few moments.Much has been made about the consultation process, including some comments by the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon about it being a rushed procedure and that the government is not adequately listening to Canadians. I have great respect for all members in the House who are participating in this debate and raising a number of very personal, ethical, legal and moral issues. I understand that; the government understands that. However, to assert that the consultation was not robust is again categorically false. We heard from 125 different individuals, who are experts in this field, whether they are delivering it or acting on behalf of disabled individuals, and from nurses, doctors, etc. We heard from 300,000 Canadians through their responses to a questionnaire that outlined the various scenarios. The views of those individuals were quite concrete in the direction they were seeking. They wanted to be empowered in terms of their autonomy, dignity and their choices. They were seeking less obstacles to what had evolved to become an overly restrictive regime, as identified by the court in Truchon. That important feature must be canvassed here. What is important to understand is that the input received was critical to the development of the bill.[Translation]As part of the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, the reasonably foreseeable death provision will be removed from the eligibility criteria. This is in response to the Truchon decision.In terms of legal impact, this amendment would mean that people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable would be eligible for medical assistance in dying if they meet all of the other eligibility criteria.[English]This is very important.The bill proposes to exclude persons whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. This has been touched upon by different people who have already intervened in the context of this debate. This is important, as was outlined by the minister. It recognizes the increased complexities and risks associated with such cases, which were highlighted by many practitioners, stakeholders and experts at the main round tables.What is very important is that the Canadian Mental Health Association supports the position we are taking with respect to excluding mental illness as a sole underlying condition to render someone eligible for MAID.[Translation]This complex issue must be examined carefully as part of the parliamentary review of the legislation on medical assistance in dying, which is to start in June of this year, as the minister himself mentioned.[English]Importantly, the Government of Quebec has also announced the exact same study for the exact same provision, that the issue of mental illness as a sole underlying condition is complex. Issues of consent and capacity and issues of properly being able to diagnose and have a prognosis are critical.I will move to some of the comments that have been made. It is important for people understand that the safeguards are under two tracks. Those safeguards respond to persons whose deaths are reasonably foreseeable and those whose death is not. With respect to some of the aspects raised in the context of today's debate, we have taken the 10-day period of reflection out of the legislation. This was put squarely into issue by the member for Fundy Royal when he asked about the basis for doing that. The basis for it was that the safeguard was not doing the work it was meant to do. As opposed to protecting vulnerability, it was actually increasing the vulnerability of individuals insofar as it was prolonging suffering in some instances.We heard, and the minister commented on this, that some people were so concerned about the inability to provide their final consent after 10 days that they would stop taking their pain medication, which was creating further suffering, just to maintain the ability to provide that final consent.On the question raised by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan most recently with respect to how one assures informed consent is applied when it has not been solicited actively, I have two responses. This is with regard to the advanced consent regime. The government is conscious of the Audrey Parker situation and we are seized with it. When people have been assessed and approved for this procedure and when they make a determination that they want to access it and provide consent in writing, that consent would be sufficient.In direct response to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, could it be vitiated? Yes. First, if the person has not lost capacity, consent could be vitiated. Second, it could be done by a physical gesture that would be interpreted to fully and finally eliminate that consent for the purposes of the practitioners. (1810)The bill strikes a balance and the balance is important. We are conscious that a compassionate response that protects vulnerable individuals and also respects their dignity and autonomy is critical and what is required by the Constitution.That is what this bill represents and I am very hopeful, as the member from the Bloc Québécois pointed out, that we can achieve all-party consensus on that very fundamental point.Application processC-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)Canadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsConsentFreedom of conscience and religionGovernment billsHealth care systemLiving willsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPublic consultationSecond readingSplitting speaking timeStatutory reviewTerminal illnessesTruchon v. Attorney General of Canada6064244606424560642466064247AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordRobMooreHon.Fundy Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88364GinettePetitpas TaylorHon.Ginette-PetitpasTaylorMoncton—Riverview—DieppeLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PetitpasTaylorGinette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax Changes]InterventionHon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.): (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his very thoughtful comments today and also for his tremendous work as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.My colleague comes from Atlantic Canada. When knocking on doors last summer, one of the number one items I heard at the door, and I am assuming he did as well, was access to health care services in Atlantic Canada and how we can improve health care services within our region and all across the country.I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on the importance of the investment of $11 billion that we have made when it comes to home care and mental health services, and how that has really benefited Canadians across the country.Health care fundingHealth care systemHome care servicesIncome taxMental healthOpposition motionsOral and dental healthTax relief606053660605376060538DarrenFisherDartmouth—Cole HarbourDarrenFisherDartmouth—Cole Harbour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88323DarrenFisherDarren-FisherDartmouth—Cole HarbourLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FisherDarren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax Changes]InterventionMr. Darren Fisher: (1635)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member as well for her incredible contribution as former minister of health and the work that she did on behalf of all Canadians.The member is absolutely correct. The number one thing we heard at the doors in Atlantic Canada was for better health care. In addition to the Canada child benefit, which has done incredible things for our country, one of the things I am most proud of is the $11 billion, in addition to the health care accord, that we have put in separate streams to go toward mental health care and home care. This investment allows the federal government to have a say in how that money is spent, and it comes with expectations on behalf of the provinces and territories to ensure those funds are spent in the proper way.It is the first time that I am aware of that we have had federal health care transfer money go toward dedicated streams within health care funding. It is something that I found was met with lots of resistance when it was first negotiated with the provinces and territories. However, the provinces and territories did fall in line and did accept those funds. I think they probably look at those funds now and say that this was money well spent and that they will work with the federal government to show how they have invested those funds in their communities.Health care fundingHealth care systemHome care servicesIncome taxMental healthOpposition motionsOral and dental healthTax relief606053960605406060541GinettePetitpas TaylorHon.Moncton—Riverview—DieppeRhéalFortinRivière-du-Nord//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88929MajidJowhariMajid-JowhariRichmond HillLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JowhariMajid_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Majid Jowhari (Richmond Hill, Lib.)(1525)[English]Bill C-207. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-207, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report). He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise today to reintroduce my private member's bill as the member of Parliament for Richmond Hill. The bill would amend paragraph 721(3)(a) of the Criminal Code. I would also like to thank the hon. member for Mississauga—Erin Mills for once again seconding the bill.The bill would mandate that alongside such information as age, character, behaviour and willingness to make amends, information outlining mental health disorders and available mental health care programs for accused be provided in a pre-sentence report, unless otherwise specified. Access to such information is vital to ensuring that Canadians with histories of mental illness are afforded care, compassion and appropriate treatment throughout the process of their rehabilitation.I urge all members of the House to support the bill. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) C-207, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presentence report)Introduction and First readingMental healthOffendersPrivate Members' Bills6052897605289860528996052900RubySahotaBrampton NorthLarryMaguireBrandon—Souris//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105562GaryVidalGary-VidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VidalGary_CPC.jpgEmergency DebateRelations with Indigenous PeoplesInterventionMr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC): (2140)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to support the Wet'suwet'en people. Over the past weeks, news organizations from coast to coast have mobilized to every blockade and every protest, vying for sound bites and clips to share on the morning news and on their social media. Who has been forgotten in all of this? It seems to me it is the people of Wet'suwet'en nation.Politicians across Canada and in this House have taken it upon themselves to speak on behalf of the people. I do not want to even pretend to speak on behalf of these people, because I think that would be foolish for me to claim to do so. It would lack credibility and integrity. Let me be clear, however. We are at a very important point in our history, and I intend to be on the side of the Wet'suwet'en people tonight, who have the right to self-determination and to control their own destiny.The elected leadership of all 20 first nations whose territory runs along the pathway of Coastal GasLink, eight hereditary chiefs and over 80% of the people are in favour of getting this pipeline built. I was the mayor of the city of Meadow Lake for eight years and I know just how difficult it is to get 80% support for a project. It is nearly impossible. That is why I appreciate the hard work that the elected chiefs have put in to negotiate an extremely successful deal with Coastal LNG on behalf of their people.There is over $1 billion in commitments to indigenous workers and to indigenous-owned firms because of this project. These dollars could be used for important investments in these communities such as housing, mental health, education, recreation and many other things. However, it is not just about the dollars being invested in these communities; it is about the creation of well-payed, sustainable jobs.I represent a riding that has a population that is over 70% indigenous. During the election campaign and in the months since, I have had many opportunities to talk to people about my vision for northern Saskatchewan, to talk to people about the opportunity to have well-paying, sustainable jobs. It is a very similar theme to what we talk about tonight when we consider this project.The benefits I have spoken about over and over again are threefold. First, there is an obvious economic benefit that comes with having a good job and being able to take care of oneself and one's family. Second, there is an innate need in each of us to be fulfilled, to feel valued and to have a sense of self-worth. There is nothing greater than the feeling one experiences after coming home, having put in an honest day's work. Third, the most important benefit that I have been talking about over the last several months is the hope that comes from the opportunity of having a good job. Youth suicide in northern remote communities is very real, and it is a heartbreaking crisis. I have spoken many times about how the suicide crisis in northern Saskatchewan is due to a lack of hope. When young people can look up to those they respect and admire, such as their parents, their uncles, their brothers and sisters, or maybe their older cousins, and see them succeed by being part of the industry in northern Saskatchewan, they have hope. They have hope for a better future and they no longer have to consider suicide. I realize that a good job does not solve every problem, but it sure is a good start and it goes a long way.The question becomes how we create these jobs. I have spoken consistently about creating partnerships between indigenous communities and private industry. These partnerships create opportunity for people in remote northern communities to fully participate in the economic well-being of Canada as a whole. This project is a perfect example of that model at work.We simply cannot allow a minority of protestors to stand in the way of the will of the Wet'suwet'en nation. These protestors have taken extraordinary measures to hold Canada hostage, compromising the safety of our rail infrastructure, blocking and intimidating people attempting to go to work and in some cases physically assaulting elected members of a provincial legislature. These blockades have had real effects on my constituents. I have heard from farmers in my riding that many are being told they will not be able to deliver the grain they have contracted for February and March. Canada's reputation as a stable supplier is at risk. Our farmers are risking losing global customers, and they will find other suppliers.These are people's livelihoods we are talking about. It is how they feed their families. It is what heats their homes. These blockades have to end. If we allow a small minority to succeed in blocking this project, I am concerned that it will be impossible for future projects to ever see the light of day.(2145)Canada's courts have been very clear. The standard for meeting the fiduciary duties for consultation and accommodation are very high. These thresholds have been met by the Coastal LNG project and they ought to be respected.My colleague referenced Ellis Ross in her speech a few moments ago, and I want to do the same. Ellis Ross is the B.C. MLA for Skeena and a former councillor and subsequent chief councillor for the Haisla Nation. He served in that role for 14 years and had the following to say recently:The heated debate over who holds authority over the territory of First Nations — be it hereditary chiefs or elected band leaders — may serve the interests of those seeking to disrupt construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline, but it does absolutely nothing for the well-being of an average Aboriginal living on reserve.He went on to further say:Allowing outsiders to undermine and dismiss years of careful consideration and consultation with elected chiefs who want nothing more than to secure a brighter future for their membership, is quite unacceptable....I am not naive enough to not realize there are members of the Wet'suwet'en nation who are not in favour of this pipeline. Of note, four of the 12 hereditary chiefs, as well as approximately 15% of the people, would fit in that category. I will always support the rights of those not in favour to protest peacefully, but as with any major decision, indigenous or non-indigenous, total consensus is often unachievable. That is why authentic relationships must be developed so we can have difficult conversations when the need arises.Let me share from my own personal experience and journey in this regard. As I said earlier, 70% of my riding is indigenous. We grew up going to school together, playing sports together, and in general, living shoulder to shoulder. Later in life when I became mayor, I had the privilege of working with and developing strong relationships with four chiefs from Flying Dust First Nation who served with me when I was mayor. We shared the challenges of water supply, policing, development activities, recreation and many other matters. It is my sincere belief that we were able to navigate these challenges because we invested in positive and authentic relationships prior to the issues being put on the table.I truly appreciate the effort the Minister of Indigenous Services has made recently to have dialogue, but unfortunately, the Prime Minister has left him in the unenviable position of having to deal with this in a reactive manner rather than in the proactive manner it deserved. It is clear that these attempts to have dialogue suddenly in the wake of a crisis are too little and far too late.The government seems to be focused on blaming the Harper government for all of its failures, but the Liberals have had four and a half years and all we hear is virtue signalling and lip service. In my riding, during the campaign I consistently heard the terms “empty promises” and “unfulfilled commitments” from my indigenous friends. That has been made abundantly clear over the past few weeks, with the choices the Prime Minister has made to prioritize a seat on the United Nations Security Council instead of dealing with the crisis here in Canada. That is not leadership, and right now leadership is what this country needs. We are asking for a common sense approach to this crisis, respect the rule of law, open authentic dialogue on reconciliation and to not allow the minority to overrule the majority.As a former mayor of Meadow Lake, I know how important these development projects are to indigenous communities. It is a real and tangible path to economic freedom, self-government and true reconciliation. That is why I am standing today in solidarity with the elected councillors, hereditary chiefs and the people of the first nation. The Prime Minister said in the House today that patience may be in short supply. It seems that the commitment to reconciliation is also in short supply. The Prime Minister did say something I agree with, which is that we all have a stake in this, that we need to find a solution and we need to find it very soon. I would only add that we should have started looking for a solution sooner. Today in the National Post, Derek Burney wrote, “A minority government should not mean that we have no government.” In the spirit of collaboration then, I encourage everyone to take a deep breath, refocus our efforts, shut out the radical minority and take earnest steps toward authentic reconciliation.British ColumbiaCanada employment creditCoastal GasLink Pipeline ProjectEconomic impactEmergency debatesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyJob creationMental healthOil and gasProtestsRail transportation and railwaysSuicidesWet'suwet'en First NationYoung people6052176CathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35389StevenBlaneyHon.Steven-BlaneyBellechasse—Les Etchemins—LévisConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BlaneySteven_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Steven Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC): (1430)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the minister should apply the existing laws, because he is certainly not familiar with the law. The law is clear that the police can suspend a firearms licence, and they can also prevent someone with mental health issues or someone involved in criminal activities from acquiring firearms. The law is clear, so nothing needs to be changed. Why go after law-abiding citizens instead of tackling street gangs, which are the real problem?Crime and criminalityFirearms permitsMental healthOral questions60408346040835BillBlairHon.Scarborough SouthwestBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Bill Blair (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, in the face of the constant threat that women in abusive relationships face from the potential of firearms in the home and the individuals who lose their lives to suicide, for anyone to suggest nothing needs to be done is unconscionable.Red flag laws have overwhelmingly proven their effectiveness because they empower more than just the limited authority of the police; they give victims, families, teachers, doctors and elders the opportunity to intervene and to keep people safe.Some hon. members: Oh, oh!Crime and criminalityFirearms permitsMental healthOral questions604083660408376040838StevenBlaneyHon.Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—LévisAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/17210RobMooreHon.Rob-MooreFundy RoyalConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MooreRob_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHealthInterventionHon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, last year, the House passed a bill by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton that would help jurors seek medical or psychiatric counselling for the horrific images and testimony that they deal with at a trial. The bill passed the House will all-party support. Since then, some provinces and territories have moved forward with their own measures to support jurors. Meanwhile, the government has failed to act.When will the Prime Minister take action and address his responsibility to Canadians fulfilling their civic duty as jurors?Health care systemJury and jurorsMental healthOral questions60382946038295JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgOral Question PeriodHealthInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, we recognize that there are more investments that need to be made in mental health support for Canadians, whether it is for PTSD for veterans, correctional services officers or policemen and women, or whether it is moving forward on greater supports for young people, indigenous communities or people who have experiences within our justice system.We know there is more to do on fighting for mental health, which is why we actually made a commitment of billions of dollars more in investments in mental health for the provinces. We are looking forward to working on that.Health care systemJury and jurorsMental healthOral questions60382966038297RobMooreHon.Fundy RoyalTedFalkProvencher//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96361BobBenzenBob-BenzenCalgary HeritageConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BenzenBob_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Bob Benzen (Calgary Heritage, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, section 5 of the Firearms Act says that a person who has threatened or committed a violent crime, a crime related to harassment, drug crimes or has serious mental health issues is unable to have a firearms licence. A person without a gun licence cannot legally have a gun. It seems that the Prime Minister's red-flag proposal is a solution in search of a problem. Is the Prime Minister's proposal different from what has existed for decades or was he simply unaware of the law?Crime and criminalityFirearms permitsMental healthOral questions60383036038304JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to inform the member opposite of what we are planning to do.There are many individuals who have a firearms licence and own firearms and who begin to present a threat to themselves or to their family. At that point, medical health professionals can alert them not to just take away the firearms, which exists—Some hon. members: Oh, oh!Crime and criminalityFirearms permitsMental healthOral questions603830560383066038307BobBenzenCalgary HeritageAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, the police currently have the ability to remove firearms from someone who presents a threat to themselves or others, but they cannot suspend the licence and prevent that person from acquiring new firearms. That is what the red-flag law is all about.Crime and criminalityFirearms permitsMental healthOral questions6038310AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingDenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPresence in GalleryInterventionMr. Glen Motz: (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of privilege arising out of question period. When the Prime Minister was responding to a question asked by one of my colleagues, he misled the House in his statement. He said “they”, meaning the police, cannot suspend the licence of an individual and then prevent that individual from acquiring a firearm. I am here to tell the Prime Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that section 5 of the Canadian Firearms Act allows that to happen specifically, and I can read it for you, as well as section 117 of the Criminal Code.Crime and criminalityFirearms permitsMembers' remarksMental healthOral questionsPoints of orderPrime MinisterReferences to membersTrudeau, Justin60383686038369AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88595MoniquePauzéMonique-PauzéRepentignyBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PauzéMonique_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActInterventionMs. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ): (1750)[Translation]Madam Speaker, as this is my first time rising for a debate, I want to begin by thanking the people of my riding, Repentigny, who put their trust in me once again last October. I hope to be worthy of their trust.I will address two aspects of this debate, namely dairy producers and, of course, aluminum.I will talk about the lack of consideration for the dairy farmers of Quebec from a completely different perspective than people might expect. That perspective is necessary because we have to find solutions. This is imperative.I will start by reminding hon. members that Quebec's dairy producers are resilient. They live and breathe their work 365 days a year. They look after their herd, invest in their facilities and prepare the next generation. It is not easy, because the economic outlook is something of a concern.I invite hon. members to put the numbers aside and give a thought to the human dimension of the consequences of agreements on a top-notch nourishing industry.The member for Mégantic—L'Érable and the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food came to a sad conclusion in the summer of 2019. They heard testimony from artisanal farmers and agricultural producers who were struggling and facing real psychological distress. If you know what rural areas are like, you know that people in the regions help each other and work together. However, when pressures, obligations and constraints increase, but protections disappear, distress is inevitable.Would it be fair to think that, since the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food launched a campaign acknowledging that the agricultural industry is struggling, the agreement should work along the same lines instead of causing the industry any additional distress?In Quebec, the Au cœur des familles agricoles organization has been instrumental in this area for 10 years now. Since 2016, in collaboration with the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention and the Union des producteurs agricoles, the organization has trained 1,200 industry workers to recognize psychological distress in farmers and direct them to specialized resources.As we have said in the House, supply management is an economic model that suits Quebec well. It goes well with our culture. This economic and trade model is what allows for stability and predictability, which was exactly what the agriculture industry asked for during negotiations for this new agreement.In its current form, CUSMA's provisions and economic repercussions for Quebec's dairy industry are troubling. The Bloc Québécois strongly believes we must condemn all of the harms that our dairy farmers will suffer. We will never stop demanding that this government and the House respect Quebec, and we will never stop calling for consistency and integrity on this file.We have been doing this for two months now, but I will now set the record straight yet again on the aluminum industry's position on CUSMA.The House has repeatedly heard that Jean Simard, the president and CEO of the Aluminium Association of Canada, agreed with the current CUSMA. However, Mr. Simard made his position clear to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance yesterday. My colleague from Joliette asked him straight out whether he would rather have had an agreement like the one the steel sector got. Mr. Simard answered that this was what the association had asked for and was about to get, thanks to the efforts of Ms. Freeland and her team. However, at the end of the negotiations, Mexico said yes to steel but no to aluminum for strategic reasons.Mr. Simard gave the committee an honest answer. We know that a committee involves multiple stakeholders, detailed questions and background work, since members take the time to study the topic being debated by the committee. Mr. Simard's candid answers clearly show that the aluminum industry was hoping to get the same protections as the steel sector.(1755)Where in Canada is there a dynamic aluminum industry with tremendous potential for expansion? Where has this industry been creating jobs for decades, well-paying jobs that allow workers to develop professionally, start a family in their region, and in turn, contribute to the regional economic vitality that all levels of government so desperately want?Well, that place is Quebec.CUSMA proposes an economic free trade model that will allow aluminum from China to flood the North American market via Mexico. That is what we have been saying over and over for months now.Parts manufacturing should be done within partner countries under the agreement. However, unlike steel, the metal used for manufacturing could come from anywhere. Mr. Simard was very clear on that point in committee yesterday. What we want to hear from the government is simply a statement from the Prime Minister along the same lines as what he said the night of his election victory. Here is what he said: “Dear Quebeckers, I heard your message tonight. You want to continue to go forward with us, but you also want to ensure that the voice of Quebec can be heard even more in Ottawa. And I can tell you that my team and I will be there for you.”Were those words meaningless, forgotten as soon as they were said? The Bloc Québécois wants to work in a proactive and practical way to help Quebec's aluminum industry and obtain fair results. We want to work with the government to find solutions. We refuse to accept that this agreement is already settled and that it must absolutely be signed.The conditions currently set out in CUSMA regarding this industry will cause serious harm to thousands of Quebec workers and Quebec's economy. Since I am our party's environment critic, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the absolutely essential manufacturing process used by the aluminum plants in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region.Alcoa and Rio Tinto chose the Arvida aluminum plant to establish a research and development centre called Elysis, valued at over $550 million. Together, they will develop all of the technology needed to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions in the production of aluminum and produce pure oxygen. Does the Prime Minister remember when that project was unveiled? He was at the project launch in 2018.The aluminum industry is not only changing and developing its potential with a clean, renewable and nationally owned source of energy, but it is also producing aluminum using a zero-emission technology developed in Quebec. How many inconsistencies must we point out before the government does the right thing?Since I am running out of time, I will not talk about the importance of concrete action to reduce GHG emissions. The aluminum industry is on the right track, and I encourage members of the House to review this issue and be honest with their caucuses about what I am saying.Let me be clear: The Bloc Québécois is not against free trade. Nevertheless, we believe that, in any trade or other relationship, the parties must communicate, be open, negotiate and make compromises. It would be disingenuous to argue that Quebec's economy was not ignored in the CUSMA negotiations. I gave two examples of that. Members of the House of Commons who claim it was not ignored are, in my opinion, acting in bad faith or are misinformed on the agreement. We will not ignore what industry representatives are telling us. They came to Parliament Hill last week. During the election period, Quebeckers voted for a voice that would raise their concerns here, in this chamber. That is exactly what we are doing and that is exactly what we will continue to do.Aluminum industryC-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican StatesCanada-United States-Mexico AgreementDairy farmingDairy industryEcotechnologyFarming and farmersGovernment billsGreenhouse gas emissions inventoriesMental healthProvince of QuebecSecond readingSteel industrySupply managementTrade agreements603877660387776038778WarrenSteinleyRegina—LewvanKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89095RobertKitchenRobert-KitchenSouris—Moose MountainConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KitchenRobert_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersBell Let's TalkInterventionMr. Robert Kitchen (Souris-Moose Mountain, CPC): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, when it comes to mental health, we need to reduce the stigma and raise awareness. Canadians from coast to coast to coast struggle with mental health issues, and the Bell Let's Talk campaign has done and continues to do incredible work addressing the stigma surrounding it.Talking openly about mental health can be difficult, yet many Canadians from all walks of life are affected. One of the main goals of Bell Let's Talk Day is to open up that conversation without judgment or stigma, while also raising funds for Canadian mental health organizations.The theme of the 2020 campaign is “Mental Health: Every Action Counts”. Not only is Bell focused on removing the stigma associated with mental health, it also expands its strategy to include supporting world-class research, improving access to care and leading by example in workplace mental health.With 5¢ being donated to Canadian mental health organizations for every view, I encourage all Canadians to share the Bell Let's Talk Day video on their social media channels or by sending a message through their Bell carrier. Let us join the conversation and help create positive change now and into the future.Bell CanadaFundraising and fundraisersMental healthStatements by Members603113260311336031134603113560311366031137ArifViraniParkdale—High ParkAdamvan KoeverdenMilton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersMental HealthInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, today is Bell Let's Talk Day, a day when we are all encouraged to talk about mental health. Mental health affects us all. Two out of three people suffer in silence, fearing judgment and rejection, and far too often this leads to suicide. It is on all of us as leaders to break this silence, to build an environment of acceptance and understanding, where those who are suffering silently can come out of the shadows and know they will be believed and they are not weak.My best friend committed suicide when I was 14. Since that time, I have attended far too many funerals and sat with far too many families who are left behind to pick up the pieces because of suicide. Therefore, on this day, my message to those who are suffering is this. They are not weak; they are loved. It is okay not to be okay. Our world is a better place because they are in it. I urge my colleagues in the House to talk about mental health not just today but every day. I ask them to take a moment to ask these three words of a friend, a loved one, a colleague or even a neighbour: “Are you okay?” I ask them to take a moment to listen as they may just save a life.Bell CanadaFundraising and fundraisersMental healthStatements by MembersSuicides603114560311466031147JeremyPatzerCypress Hills—GrasslandsJagmeetSinghBurnaby South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104694LyneBessetteLyne-BessetteBrome—MissisquoiLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BessetteLyne_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodAgriculture and Agri-FoodInterventionMrs. Lyne Bessette (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): (1510)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, agriculture is a dynamic industry ripe with opportunity. Since today is Bell Let's Talk Day, it is important to remember that the agriculture sector is not immune from mental distress. As part of their job, farmers have to cope with increasingly unpredictable weather conditions and global markets, and the uncertainty that this creates can weigh heavily on them.Many organizations, such as Au coeur des familles agricoles in Quebec and the Farm Stress Line in Saskatchewan, are making outstanding efforts to support our farmers' well-being.Could the Prime Minister—Farming and farmersMental healthOral questions603134660313476031348JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58733JustinTrudeauRight Hon.Justin-TrudeauPapineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudeauJustin_LIB.jpgOral Question PeriodAgriculture and Agri-FoodInterventionRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): (1510)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brome—Missisquoi for her work and for her question.Mental health is a societal issue. We care about farmers' well-being. It can be hard for farmers experiencing mental distress to confide in people close to them. We are providing support and a range of mental health awareness initiatives, and we are funding research to gain a better understanding of the situation. We want to make sure that farmers and their families know that there are resources available to help them through tough times.Farming and farmersMental healthOral questions60313506031351AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingScottDuvallHamilton Mountain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP): (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to rise today to respond to the Speech from the Throne. I would like to thank the voters in Nanaimo—Ladysmith for giving me their support to stand here today. I would also like to thank my family, volunteers and team that supported me as well.My electoral district of Nanaimo—Ladysmith faces many serious challenges that are not unique to our area, but are very acute and much more challenging than in other parts of the country. I am very pleased to see a number of key initiatives and promises in the Speech from the Throne and the mandate letters to ministers that will help address some of the challenges my constituents face. I am committed to working across party lines in a positive and collaborative way for legislation that will benefit all Canadians, and where I see a need for improvement, I will speak up about it.Nanaimo—Ladysmith has one of the largest homeless populations per capita in Canada. I am glad to see the government step up with the creation of a national housing strategy. However, I do not think the targets outlined will be enough to deal with the crisis that communities face. We have vulnerable and marginalized people who are struggling with affordable housing and homelessness. They need safe and affordable places to live. It is encouraging to see the inclusion of national standards for mental health support. Mental health care should be part of our universal health care system, so the cost of treatment is not a barrier to people seeking support, especially when they are in a crisis. Many of the people who are homeless in Nanaimo—Ladysmith are struggling with serious mental health issues. The mayor of Nanaimo has gone so far as to call for new institutions for people who are clearly suffering and unable to cope with their mental illness.Like many other regions of the country, Nanaimo—Ladysmith is deeply affected by the opioid crisis. We have young men, with good jobs and families, who have become addicted to opioids after work-related injuries. They are dying because the stigma of drug addiction has made them fearful to seek help. The war on drugs is a failure. Let us study what other countries have done to deal with this health and social issue and create a made-in-Canada solution. Alleviating homelessness and improving access to mental health care and addiction treatment services will reduce the criminality associated with these social issues and allow our justice system to focus on violent and repeat offenders.I am also very pleased to see that the government is committed to strengthening medicare and renewing its health agreement with the provinces and that mandate letters call for a universal national pharmacare program. We need to add a national dental care program to that as well.Nanaimo—Ladysmith has a serious shortage of doctors in a rapidly growing population. Vancouver Island is a retirement destination for many Canadians. The Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, which was built in the 1960s, serves the oldest per capita population in Canada. This hospital is overdue for an upgrade to create a tertiary hospital that will provide cancer care, cardiac care and expanded psychiatric services. HealthCareCAN is calling on the government to green our health care infrastructure and ensure that it is energy efficient as part of the efforts to combat climate change. I hope the government will heed that call and provide major funding to help the provinces upgrade aging health care infrastructure.It is very important for my community to see an increase in the funding for home care and palliative care, but we also need to see major changes in how senior care residences are operated. The Investment Canada Act needs to be changed to exclude seniors homes from foreign ownership. Seniors homes should be viewed as part of our health care system. The recent experience with the purchase of Retirement Concepts by Anbang Insurance in China, which is now a state-owned corporation, must not be repeated. The Vancouver Island Health authority recently had to take over administration of three Retirement Concepts facilities due to unsafe conditions. Foreign corporations have no connection to our community and should not be profiting from providing poor-quality seniors care. The non-profit model of community-centred care is a far better way of ensuring that our seniors get the quality care they deserve.(1340)Small and medium-sized businesses are major economic drivers and employ the vast majority of Canadians. I am glad to see in the mandate letters that there will be improved support for start-ups, but what I have heard from the small and medium-sized enterprises in my community is that there is a need for additional support for businesses that want to take the next step in their growth, whether that is innovation for a new product line, creating efficiencies that reduce waste and lower their carbon footprint, or expanding their markets. Canada has been a great incubator for new businesses, but often these businesses are lured away to other jurisdictions by incentives, tax breaks and programs that help them grow to the next level. We need to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises stay in Canada and continue to provide well-paying jobs for Canadian workers.I know the language of tax cuts has been a popular mantra, but tax cuts inevitably lead to austerity and either cuts to services or to the addition of user fees for the services that middle- and lower-income Canadians rely on. I support having services that our taxes provide, such as universal health care, and infrastructure such as public transit, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools and recreation facilities. What we need is fairness. We need to ensure that wealthy Canadians are paying their fair share. Large corporations benefit from the social services provided to their employees and the infrastructure they use as part of their businesses. The government needs to close tax loopholes, crack down on tax evasions and shut down tax avoidance schemes and the offshoring of wealth by corporations and individuals.There are four first nations in the Nanaimo—Ladysmith riding, and the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian legislation is very important to them and to creating economic certainty in our region. Building a new relationship with indigenous people in Canada requires more than just words; it requires a commitment to respect the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions. In too many cases, especially when large extraction projects are at stake, the intent of UNDRIP is not being followed.In addition to the climate crisis, we are facing a crash in biodiversity. The commitments to protect 25% of the land base and 25% of the marine base in conservation by 2025 is very important. The riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith has very little conservation land put aside because the whole southeast portion of Vancouver Island was privatized as part of the deal for B.C. to enter Confederation. The Nanaimo River watershed is 750 square kilometres in area, but only 10 square kilometres are in a conservation area and less than two square kilometres are designated as parkland. The Nanaimo River is very important ecologically and needs greater conservation, and 25% would be a welcomed inclusion. Like my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, I see a great Speech from the Throne, but it is hard to be optimistic. The previous Speech from the Throne from the Liberal government promised that 2015 would be the last first-past-the-post election. It was not. There are a couple of other things my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands has highlighted that were promises that were not kept. Canadians were also promised concrete action to combat climate change, but the targets for reducing emissions have not changed from the ones put in place by the previous Conservative government before the Paris accord. We are not even on target to meet those commitments. Instead, the government has approved environmentally destructive projects, has bought a pipeline that guarantees an increase in emissions and has continued to provide subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. It is for those reasons that I will vote against the Speech from the Throne. I am ready to work with the government to establish new targets, because until we commit to do our part and follow through on our commitments, all of the other issues I have mentioned will not matter. Climate change will impact every area of our lives, overwhelm our health care system and destroy our economy.I was elected on a promise to continue pressing the government for real and substantive action on climate change, and that is a promise I intend to keep.Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneClimate change and global warmingDrug use and abuseForeign companiesHealth care systemHomelessness and homelessMental healthNational Housing StrategyNature conservationOpiates and opioidsPublic healthResidential homes for the elderlySmall and medium-sized enterprises6026951CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105242Adamvan KoeverdenAdam-vanKoeverdenMiltonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/vanKoeverdenAdam_Lib.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Sport), Lib.): (1705)[English]Madam Speaker, a few days ago I was on Twitter and uncharacteristically came across a story that warmed my heart. It was the story of a young third grade boy who came to Newfoundland as a refugee from Syria with his family. I learned that this young boy knew that some of his classmates played hockey and he wanted to play too, but there were a few barriers in his way. He did not know how to play, he did not have anyone to teach him and he did not have any equipment. However, he did know the most important lesson of hockey. Wayne Gretzky said it himself, “Hockey is a unique sport in the sense that you need each and every guy helping each other and pulling in the same direction to be successful.” It sounds like another sport with which I am familiar.After some of his classmates told their parents about this young boy who wanted to play hockey, that is exactly what the town did. Residents came together working toward the same goal, to help get him on the ice. The whole community got together to make sure that nothing got in the way of him playing hockey. Before anyone knew it, there was no shortage of hockey gear, people willing to coach him and after this viral tweet, fans from across Canada and the world. This heartwarming story is a good reminder of two very important things. The first is that being Canadian is about the kindness that we strive for every day, our commitment to making everyone feel welcome and respected and the things we can accomplish when we come together. The second is the reminder that issues affecting Canadians do not exist in vacuums. Nor are they unrelated. Being able to participate in sports is not a question of desire or ambition. There are barriers in front of our youth who wish to participate. For some, it is a question of affordability. For those living in rural areas with little or no public transportation, it can be a question of access. The barrier can also be an absence of spaces that are culturally appropriate for some Canadians. Sport is not just play. Sport is health and mental health. Sport is peace and community building, it is personally empowering and a connection to our natural environment. Sport is educational, employs thousands of Canadians, drives our economy and helps define us as a nation. Sport has a place in every kid's life and a place in every portfolio in this government.As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth as well as for Sport, this story emphasizes the intersection of my portfolios. For me, being raised by a single mother in co-op housing, I was very fortunate to have found the sport of kayaking. It quite literally changed my life. However, what if certain barriers had gotten in the way of that? What if the fees at the kayak club were just too high and made it impossible for my mother to pay? I took public transit to and from the canoe club every day. What if the town I grew up in did not have public transit? These barriers to participation are exactly the sorts of things I hope to be able to identify and dismantle in the coming years.Given the opportunity that I have with this role, I am ready to listen, learn and find solutions so all Canadians can access sport, recreation and physical activity. This includes examining the barriers that women in leadership roles face inside and outside the sport industry, working on expanding Canada's anti-racism strategy and ensuring easier access to sports and community activities for newcomers to Canada.One of the reasons I find the Speech from the Throne to be such an ambitious action plan for the government's vision for Canada is because it understands this very thing, that no issue exists in a vacuum. The government has put forward goals and targets that are well balanced, interconnected and complementary. No ministry is working alone, but rather, working as a team toward the same goal of a better future for all Canadians. It is incumbent on every member in the House to collaborate and work together to that end.Next let us talk about the government's plan on climate change. The implications of climate change are being reminded to us every day. The Australian wildfires have destroyed the natural habitats of almost 100 species. The polar ice caps are melting and sea levels are rising. Youth are looking at us and demanding action. We must not ignore them. Climate change is hurting the economy and when the economy suffers, it is the marginalized who suffer the most. This an urgent matter of public and global safety. Health concerns that we have never anticipated before are popping up worldwide because of bad air quality and toxins in our food.Our government understands that climate change is a multi-faceted issue and we have set ambitious goals to meet the challenge. We are committing to protecting 25% of our land and 25% of our oceans by 2025. We are also committing to reduce plastic pollution to zero to help keep our oceans and lakes clean. Our government is launching a program to plant two billion trees, a program that will support 3,500 seasonal jobs, help conserve and restore our forests, as well as help cities expand and diversify their urban forests.We have a responsibility to tackle climate change and we have put a plan together that gets us to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The government is setting targets that are not only ambitious, but achievable as well. We need to do a better job for all Canadians, but especially for the youth and the most vulnerable. The impacts of climate change disproportionately affect the most marginalized people in our society, such as indigenous, racialized and economically disadvantaged populations.(1710)A big part of doing better means strengthening our middle class and helping more Canadians join it. Working toward a poverty-free Canada is a priority that this government has taken on, and as a co-op kid myself, it is one I feel very strongly about.During its last mandate, this government made historic gains in lifting families and children over the poverty line, and the Speech from the Throne only reaffirms this commitment to do more. The government will continue its vital investments in affordable housing, exactly the sort of housing I grew up in with my family. Without access to safe and affordable housing, my mother would have had to choose between paying rent and buying healthy groceries or enrolling my brother and me in sports and after-school activities. Building affordable housing gives Canadians across the country the opportunity to succeed, and co-ops should be included in that plan. Our goal as a government is not just to help our citizens get by; our goal is to help them thrive.With initiatives like the Canada child benefit, the government has made life easier for parents and families trying to get ahead. In my own riding of Milton, in a typical month the government gave an average of $550 to 15,000 families from 2016 to 2018. I have heard that Milton is the youngest riding in Canada with the most kids, so it is possible it will receive the most, but in the last four years that is an average of $180 million. It is historic.This opens countless doors for so many families and their children. To a family just getting by, $500 makes a huge difference. It means that one parent might not have to give up his or her career or perhaps can stay in college because the family can now afford child care. The Canada child benefit makes this possible.Studies show that growing up in poverty hurts children very early on and the effects of poverty will follow them into adulthood. No child should have to face food insecurity. No child should think that access to adequate and culturally appropriate health care is a privilege. In the Speech from the Throne, the government makes it clear that it is taking the steps to ensure these facts become realities in Canada.The government is aware of the challenges that many Canadians are currently facing in accessing quality health care. All Canadians, regardless of where they live, should be able to access a primary care family doctor. When we talk about the intersection of issues, mental health is one that is so deeply intertwined with every aspect of our lives. With Bell Let's Talk Day coming up this Wednesday, we need to celebrate all the work that has been done to decrease the stigma around mental health. However, a lot of work still remains and cannot slow down now. We need to ensure that workplaces across Canada have mental health standards in place. People who want to access mental health services should not have to wait months on end before they get the help they need. These are exactly the sorts of problems our government will tackle, by working to introduce relevant workplace mental health standards and ensuring Canadians can access services when they need them.We are living in an uncertain time. Many Canadians across the nation are worried about their future. We acknowledge those valid anxieties Canadians might have and we promise to work tirelessly toward a safer Canada. This government has already taken historic action against gun crime and organized gang activity. We must not wait until the next tragedy to ban military-style assault rifles, a top priority for this government. It will also work with municipalities to empower those that want to ban handguns. We need to take actions that keep Canadians safe. We must also do what is possible to help the rest of the world become a safer place as well. I now want to take a few moments to talk about the events of the past few weeks. Our country is still mourning the death of the people we lost on Flight PS752. This devastating national tragedy is heavy on the hearts of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Over the past few weeks, I have seen communities come together to support the families and friends of the victims through this most difficult time. I attended a vigil in Oakville with my colleagues and neighbours to light a candle and remember, and it was a sad but important moment.Tragedies like this one should never happen again. Our responsibility extends beyond our borders to the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world. The government's commitments to providing international development aid and assistance, such as investing in education and gender equality, will create pathways to opportunities, better futures for people worldwide and a more peaceful world. Together, with the help of our allies, we will work together to champion human rights and achieve peace in areas affected by war, poverty and disease.As we look toward the future, we must ask ourselves what our vision is for Canada. I want to go back to the story of the young boy in Newfoundland whom I talked about at the beginning of this response. As a rookie MP, I often find myself asking two questions. The first one is, “Who am I here to represent?” The answer to that question is easy; it is the people of Milton. As long as the people in the riding of Milton elect me to be their representative, I will be a fierce advocate for them in Ottawa. The second question is, “Why am I here?” This one is a little trickier, but the story of this young boy made me realize that at the heart of it what we are here to do is work toward a Canada where every young boy and girl, and every Canadian for that matter, can succeed no matter where they come from. When I look at the vision of our government and the goals we have been set, I see us working toward this Canada together.(1715) As I have said throughout my campaign and throughout my time here, I believe there are good ideas on the right and there are good ideas on the left, and we are much stronger when we work together as team Canada. Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneAir accidentsBenefits for childrenCanadians in foreign countriesChildrenCities and townsClimate change and global warmingDeaths and funeralsForestsGun controlHealth services accessibilityHumanitarian assistance and workersMental healthNature conservationPovertyPublic healthSocial housingSports60282876028288RyanTurnbullWhitbyCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): (1140)[English]Mr. Speaker, Veterans Affairs is shutting down mental health services for veterans' families while it creates new criteria. Family members are going to have to reapply and they are terrified because they know that right now Veterans Affairs has a backlog of over 40,000 cases. The Liberal government in its throne speech promised better mental health care for our veterans and their families, so why are veterans' spouses and their children being punished when the Minister of Veterans Affairs allowed VAC to fund a criminal who was incarcerated for the murder of a policewoman?Mental healthOral questionsVeteransVeterans benefits60239166023917NavdeepBainsHon.Mississauga—MaltonLawrenceMacAulayHon.Cardigan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/33LawrenceMacAulayHon.Lawrence-MacAulayCardiganLiberal CaucusPrince Edward Island//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacAulayLawrence_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionHon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): (1140)[English]Mr. Speaker, I can confirm for my hon. colleague that my department has not changed its policy regarding mental health services for family members. If support to family members is required as part of a veteran's treatment plan, they will receive that support. However, if a family member is incarcerated, we will not duplicate services with those of Correctional Service of Canada.Mental healthOral questionsVeteransVeterans benefits6023918CathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleMichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105410TerryDowdallTerry-DowdallSimcoe—GreyConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DowdallTerry_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Terry Dowdall (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): (1200)[English]Mr. Speaker, tragically, on Canadian Forces Base Borden in my riding, there were recently two suicides. The Minister of National Defence once said, “one suicide is too many”. I agree.There are 3,000-plus families rotating through Borden. Families struggle to find access to primary care and psychiatric services. The CEO of my local hospital has offered to bring psychiatric services to the base with support from the federal government.Is the minister open to listening to creative local solutions to help soldiers who need psychiatric services?Canadian ForcesMental healthOral questions602397960239806023981PaulLefebvreSudburyHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89497Harjit S.SajjanHon.HarjitS--SajjanVancouver SouthLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SajjanHarjit_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionHon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): (1200)[English]Mr. Speaker, one suicide is too many when it comes to our Canadian Armed Forces members. We are investing in our mental health services, with a joint suicide prevention strategy with the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Yes, I am open not only to the member opposite, but to all members of the House for any ideas they might have to make sure we provide the right support to our veterans.Canadian ForcesMental healthOral questions60239826023983TerryDowdallSimcoe—GreyKyleSeebackDufferin—Caledon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104973AndréanneLaroucheAndréanne-LaroucheSheffordBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LaroucheAndréanne_BQ.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMs. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): (1330)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.Now that I have more time than I did on the first few occasions I rose in the House, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to voters in my magnificent riding, Shefford, for putting their trust in me on October 21. I am deeply humbled to accept my new role as a member of Parliament.I will work very hard and look for opportunities to collaborate so that I can properly represent the people of my riding, whose entrepreneurial spirit is strong. My riding has lakes, rivers and mountains that we want to protect and a unique agrifood industry. I would also like to thank some people, because nobody runs an election campaign alone. I am a proper Quebecker and a hockey fan, so I see the similarities between a campaign and a game, and everyone knows I am by no means a puck hog. I would like to thank the people on my offensive line: my campaign director, Carole Ducharme; my communications director, Marthe Lapierre; my official agent, François Paré; my adviser, Maxime Leclerc; and my scheduling officer, Estelle Côté. I would also like to thank all my other volunteers and supporters.I also want to thank the members of my defence team. I thank my family, who has always been there for me: my father, André, my mother, Rachel, my sister, Catherine, my brothers, Samuel and Vincent, my father's spouse, Carole, and my mother's spouse, François. They were sometimes called upon to assist my offensive team. They even put up some of my election signs.I also want to thank the people who helped me keep my cool and stay grounded. When my niece Leia would jump into my arms, when my nephew Tyler would give me a smile or when my godchild Thomas would greet me, I was reminded that they are the reason I am in politics. I want to give them a better future. I did not get into politics to have a career. I got into politics out of conviction.I also want to thank my goalie, my spouse, Richard Leclerc, who was prepared to stop everything. He supported me non-stop. Behind every great woman is a great man. He made a number of key saves to help me win the game. He was the difference-maker. Now that I have been elected, I am fortunate to be part of the incredible Bloc Québécois team, composed of 32 members and all of our staff, and to have been appointed the Bloc Québécois critic for the status of women, gender equality and seniors. Those issues are particularly important to me, as I had the opportunity to work in those fields in recent years in various community organizations. I paid very close attention to the throne speech, looking to find commitments in those areas, but there was nothing to be found. As for status of women, I support the government's willingness to work on tightening the rules around firearms, but words are not enough. The House has the ability to take real action. We can introduce stronger gun controls, especially for assault weapons and handguns. We can tighten border controls for firearms, to try and get them off the black market. We can ensure that buyers of firearms do not pose a threat to anyone's life.We need to take action against daily violence against women, the slaps across the face and the horrible violence committed against women simply because they are women. We need to take action to remove the stigma and combat misogyny.Therefore, I will be carefully monitoring the government's commitment to the gender-based violence strategy and to the development of a national action plan in concert with its partners. This should include help for mental health. I imagine that we will have the opportunity to talk about this again in committee.With respect to seniors, we will have to ensure that there are not two classes of seniors and that pensions be increased starting at age 65. The spiral of poverty does not wait for an individual to turn 75, it all too often starts upon retirement. When I asked a question about this, the Minister of Seniors even said that it was an excellent idea.Seniors, families and those living alone are also asking for more social housing. Monies should be transferred to Quebec with no strings attached. As protesters stated this week, having a decent roof over one's head should not have a price tag. (1335)We also need to consider health transfers, which need to be increased to 5.2%. We know that health is the number one issue and it is no doubt our most precious asset. We will wish many people good health during the holiday season. Seniors also want to be seen as a grey-haired source of strength, not as a burden. We therefore need to let them remain on the labour market, if they so desire, which would help alleviate the labour shortage. We therefore need to create tax incentives for people over the age of 65 and ensure that they are no longer penalized if they want to remain active and continue to contribute to our economy.I come from a riding where there are many agricultural entrepreneurs and so I want to support them. That is why I believe that there should be no more breaches in supply management and that the system should be protected by legislation. I spent my childhood on a farm so I am all the more concerned about this sector, which just had such a hard year.In closing, I can only hope for better representation in Parliament, which is currently only 29% women. We have still not achieved gender parity. We will need to look into that.When it comes to defending Quebec's interests, I am not worried. My colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and I will keep standing up for Quebeckers. That is why I am disappointed that our party's subamendment was not adopted by all the opposition parties.By way of a reminder, items found in the subamendment include: respecting provincial jurisdiction, in particular by not authorizing any project that does not comply with provincial and Quebec laws relating to environmental protection and land use planning; underfunding of the health care system, which requires an increase in transfers; an unprecedented crisis facing media and creators, who must be supported through the imposition of royalties on web giants; and loopholes in the supply management system that must be protected by legislation. We will be back at it in 2020. We will not give up fighting for Quebeckers. In a few minutes we will be leaving the House for the holidays. I wish everyone some quiet time with their loved ones. As we see it, the challenges of this minority government are great, and we must all get to work as quickly as possible. I will remember those who voted for me, my cherished constituents.Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneCanada Health TransferCanada Pension PlanElectoral candidates and nominationsFarming and farmersFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGender-based violenceGun controlHealthIncentives to workLabour shortageMembers of ParliamentMental healthPensions and pensionersProvince of QuebecSenior citizensSocial housingSplitting speaking timeSupply managementTaxationTransfers to provinces and territoriesWomen6024230GregMcLeanCalgary CentreAdamVaughanSpadina—Fort York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/54434AdamVaughanAdam-VaughanSpadina—Fort YorkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/VaughanAdam_Lib.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMr. Adam Vaughan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development (Housing), Lib.): (1400)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my thanks, first and foremost, to my wife and my partner, Nicole. This was her first campaign as the spouse of a parliamentarian. Many may not know, but I was married in the middle of the last term. She had nothing but joy to express for the fun of canvassing and meeting people, listening to their needs and also watching us talk about how to build strong communities, cities and a better Canada. The election was made that much more enjoyable having a partner like her along to provide that support. To see an election through new eyes is always a real pleasure for any politician who has been through countless elections.I also want to thank the residents, voters and the folks who make up Spadina—Fort York, which is a riding that dances along the waterfront in the inner harbour of Lake Ontario in Toronto. It is one of the most diverse ridings, as many in Toronto are. It also has pockets of extreme creativity and vibrancy with respect to its economic clout. However, it also has pockets of some of the poorest neighbourhoods in Canada. That combination of affluence and poverty cheek by jowl creates good, strong social networks of mutual support between the two. It also explains the challenges we have as a city, as a country, to ensure that we build an economy where prosperity is shared more generously, fairly and productively. I certainly heard from my residents that this was one of the mandates they sent me back to Ottawa to advocate on their behalf.Of course, climate change was another issue for us as a waterfront community. With the flooding we experienced last spring, 600 residents on Toronto islands were at risk of losing their homes. We lost extraordinary and very delicate ecological infrastructure. We have to turn our eyes to ensure that not only do we fight climate change with good, strong policies that limit greenhouse gas emissions, but also that we protect those communities that are in harm's way right now as water levels change and become more chaotic. We also need to ensure the natural habitat is restored. Those are the priorities that residents sent me back here to talk about, among others. Therefore, I look to the throne speech as a way of starting to fulfill those responsibilities and assuring the residents who sent me here, and my colleagues who I will be sharing time with in the House, that my focus on those issues will be unrelenting.One of the things I commented on earlier during members' statements was the issue of housing and homelessness across the country. It is why I left city council and ran federally back in 2014. It is why I am so proud to be reappointed as the parliamentary secretary, with a specific focus and responsibility for housing. As I have often said, and members who were here before may recall, while housing is often defined as the crisis that needs to be solved, to me housing remains the best tool we have to address the issues raised by members from all parties, as they have explained the mandates they have received from their residents. When it comes to things like unemployment in places like Alberta, when we build social housing, we create jobs. We know that the construction trades are a large part of the downturn in the energy economy, with the lack of work for highly skilled labour in that province. Building a gas plant requires many of the same skill sets as building a house. We can start to solve some of the poverty issues in Alberta by putting to work the unemployed construction workers who had been working on oil projects. As we wait for world oil prices to return, as we wait for new markets to be established and as we wait for the investments we have made to strengthen the oil and gas sector, one of the things we can do in the interim is build the infrastructure that people on the lower end of the economic scale so desperately need. It is why I was so disheartened to see the Alberta government cut funding for homelessness and front-line services in Calgary and Edmonton. It is why I have been talking so closely with the mayors in those cities to ensure our housing programs reach the provinces. Even if a provincial government is walking away from those programs, it is good to know the national program will be there to provide assistance and, hopefully, good, strong jobs, as well as the social support that housing provides. Therefore, housing is an economic tool, an economic driver and is a critically important part of what the mandate talked about. It is a critically important part of what the national housing strategy hopes to achieve. However, when it is seen as economic development and not just a social service, it seems much more dynamic than I think some members give credit for. I hope members opposite can support a stronger, growing and more vibrant housing policy. I know our government is committed to doing that. Also, reference to that in the throne speech is perhaps more appropriately identified as housing as a tool to get toward reconciliation.(1405)When I did work on the homelessness file in the previous Parliament, an indigenous housing provider from Regina, Saskatchewan, said that we cannot have reconciliation without housing policy, cannot have reconciliation without a place to call home. In many indigenous nations across the country, the notion of having a home is not the issue; it is shelter that is the challenge. They are home when they are on their ground, when they are on their territory, and when we can provide a house with the territory, we have achieved full reconciliation, because both the land and the shelter and the capacity to provide housing have been returned to programs that are self-directed, self-managed and self-realized by indigenous communities.I took those words to heart, and I have been a strong advocate for indigenous housing providers and have worked very closely with them right across the country from coast to coast to coast, particularly in the Northwest Territories. I am thrilled to see the mandate letters that were produced today and the reference in the Speech from the Throne to the need for an urban indigenous housing program in this country that is designed, delivered, managed and run by indigenous housing providers right across the country. That is in addition to the commitments we have made through the indigenous infrastructure programs to make sure that the three programs for housing through the NIOs, the ITK and the Métis foundation continue to grow to provide a place to call home that is safe, secure and affordable. These programs are also addressing some of the challenges about murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and two-spirit people, as well as providing economic liberation and dealing with some of the poverty that colonialism imposed upon indigenous people across the country for far too long.Housing becomes one of the strong tools we can use as the federal government to realize our commitment and our promise to fully realize the recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as well as the key recommendations inside the missing and murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and two-spirited report. We can use housing as a tool to solve those problems.The other thing we can use housing to do is address climate change. Studies have identified that urban centres are the greatest source of our greenhouse gas emissions, providing 62% or 69%, depending on the studies one looks at, and it is largely from built form. That means our houses need to be more energy-efficient. When we create more energy-efficient housing, not only do we create more affordable housing, but we create housing that actually contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gases and makes the planet safer for all of us to live in.Again, housing creates economic capacity and creates jobs, but shelter also provides social stability, and it provides environmental payoffs if we do it correctly. We had a very strong commitment in our campaign, and the throne speech as well refers to environmental policies and to providing Canadians with interest-free loans to retrofit their homes so they can make their contribution to climate change real and also do it affordably. They can actually save money by making a contribution to help us fight climate change. It is a win-win-win proposition, and it is one that I look forward to realizing in this Parliament. I look forward to members on the benches opposite who have similar programs making their contributions to make this program as strong as possible.We have heard about pharmacare. We have heard that Canadians need access to health care on a universal and more national basis. We know that we have to work with provinces and territories, indigenous governments and municipalities to get pharmacare right, to make sure it dovetails with existing programs and that it grows and extends to different medical devices. Those issues are also critically important, but every single study on the issue of health care tells us that housing is a key determinant to better health care outcomes. In fact, a very interesting study that was done by an AIDS foundation in the United States showed that viral suppression is only possible if housing is included with the drug program. In other words, drugs alone will not create the health we seek for our neighbours and fellow Canadians. We need places to treat people. We need stable places for many of the drug programs to work effectively, including pharmaceuticals, and Housing is a critical part of that as well.Our commitment to increasing funding for mental health services and addiction services will not be effective and will not achieve positive results in people's lives if supportive housing is not built to create places to treat and care for people and allow them to thrive, heal and move forward. Those investments that are often talked about as health care investments will be realized through supportive housing investments. When we can get that piece of the health care budget right and use it in concert with our housing policies, we will also see much stronger, aggressive and more successful campaigns to end homelessness in this country. Again, housing is not the crisis: Housing is the solution to so many of the problems that we face.(1410)One issue that will also be seen as part of the program to solve a challenge that is beyond heartbreaking in our communities is the issue of gun violence.Gun violence is an issue in my community, the communities that I represent and the neighbourhoods my family walks through on the way to school and the way home from work. I have been to more funerals for children in my riding than for family members in my lifetime. Stop and think about that. I have stood with more families in extreme trauma, as they buried young people in my riding, than I have with members of my own family. That is an unacceptable situation in this country.There are all sorts of reasons why a long gun is an important tool, and why hunting and the protection of families in rural parts of the country are important. In urban centres, the more bullets that fly, the more people that die. We have to find a way to curtail that. Of course it requires strong border controls, investments in security at the borders and breaking down the way guns are smuggled into this country by both legal and illegal gun owners. We have to make sure that we step up criminal charges against dangerous people who have reached for a gun too often and let them go off in our cities, and we have to make sure that they do not do harm to more people in our communities. We need to get handguns off the streets in urban centres. It is just fundamental to the health and welfare of our communities.It is not just the atrocious number of people who are shot or killed. The families that live in neighbourhoods where gun play is all too prevalent live in an intense and sustained circumstance, an environment of stress and disorder. For young children who have to sleep at night in the basement of their housing units because the ground floor is not seen to be safe, or for families that have guns going off, making kids who are five or six years old jump, leads to all sorts of other challenges in our communities. It becomes a mental health issue, quite frankly. It is a form of PTSD for so many young people, particularly racialized youth in our cities. That has to stop.Families that have buried their children, that have had to stay by their bedside in emergency wards at hospitals, that have scared kids day in and day out, have asked us to act on gun control. They have asked us to deal with handguns. We have to do it because they have lost confidence in the government to listen. They have lost confidence in society to listen. They have lost confidence in Canada to listen to the trauma they are being asked to endure. They have asked us to act on this, even though they know it is only one part of the solution. They need to see that communities around this country support them as they seek to build healthy and wonderful children, and they cannot do it fearing guns in our cities. That is why it is so critically important to act on this.Examining what causes a young person to reach for a gun as a solution also needs to be part of the program if we are going to eliminate this behaviour. We cannot police homicides out of existence. Passing laws has never worked. We have had homicides since time immemorial, long before laws existed, and no country on this planet has eliminated death by handgun simply by outlawing it. Laws are not a deterrent. If people are so scared or so intent on exercising power with a gun, it does not matter how many laws we have. The problem is that the person has already reached for a gun. We have to get to where young people are making better choices and have the opportunity to make better choices. Again, this is where housing comes into play. When young people are housed properly, cared for properly, nurtured properly, when they are invested in and when they are seen as true citizens worthy of our care and our compassion, our investments and our support, they make better choices. In every community where better choices are put in front of young people who are at risk, young people will make those better choices. It is a rational, humane thing to do. When those choices are not there for young people, unfortunately far too many of them reach for a gun, whether it is smuggled across the border, stolen from a home down the road, broken out of a gun shop, stolen from a range or simply rented from a legal gun owner.A person in my riding had 11 legal guns. That individual never did anything with them except rent them out to hoodlums. Two people died as a result of that. When the police went to get the 11 legal guns, they could not find them. He was a legal gun owner until he was not. The reality of this is that he was renting the guns out to pay to go through university. It is a true story, and it killed two people.(1415)That person was smart enough to make better choices, but he did not have those choices in front of him and as a result, made the mistakes that cost people their lives. It also meant that there were 11 handguns floating around the neighbourhood for years and everybody knew, but nobody said anything because they were afraid. We have to change the social circumstances and constructs in order to make these outcomes stronger. One of the best ways to do that is to make housing more affordable and support families in terms of good, strong social infrastructure, good programs that support their educational opportunities. We need to make sure that the programs that provide jobs start to hire people in communities where high unemployment rates have been tolerated, despite some of the success we have had over the last two to four years.Again, housing becomes part of the solution to gun violence. If those on the other side are really serious about making sure that the rules and regulations do not hurt law-abiding owners who need to hunt for food, protect their farms, or what have you, then they will stand up and support our government's initiatives to put into play those social investments in our cities and those investments in housing, to make sure educational opportunities are sustained and to make sure that we give young people the tools they need to survive; not guns but education, jobs, hopes and opportunities.The final issue is culture and heritage and the need for strong investments in the arts and digital media sectors. One of the fastest growing parts of my riding is the digital media sector. In fact, it has outpaced, in terms of job growth, Silicon Valley for the last two years. One of the reasons it has done that is because our immigration policies get people with talent into our country quickly, who cannot get into the United States. Tech firms from the United States are moving to Toronto so they can get access to the global pool of talent. More importantly, they are understanding that Canada's pool of talent is extraordinarily high, rich and diverse. When those tech firms come to Toronto, they realize that what they were looking for was in Toronto all along.Supporting open policies around immigration, progressive policies driven by economic need, and also making sure that we are good, strong humanitarians on the global stage has created the context for a good, strong economy in our communities. We need to make sure that we keep those doors open, so that we keep people coming to this country with talents and contributions that they want to make. We also have to make sure that new arrivals are allowed to make those contributions.One of the worrying statistics in Toronto is that immigrants and refugees are doing less well after five years in Canada now than they have at any other time in the country's history. What are the supports that are missing, preventing that successful integration? Once again, it is housing. When housing costs are so high that they cannot afford the courses to requalify their credentials, when housing costs are so high or the houses are so far away from jobs that transportation costs become a barrier to participation in the workforce, when housing costs are so high that people spend all their time looking for affordable places to rent instead of better jobs, they fall further and further behind. Their health and mental health start to suffer and their capacity to make the contributions they are ready to make to this country is hurt. Making sure that we pay attention to those issues is one of the ways we can support the arts and culture sector, which, as I said, is the fourth-largest employer in Toronto and the largest employer in my riding. Moving our funding and support to the cultural sector is one way to develop the economy in our country. Artists need places to create and quite often an artist will live, work and produce in the same space. We need to make sure our housing programs support that and the arts industries that gather around that.I will conclude by re-emphasizing the point I want to make most clearly about the throne speech and the mandate letters supported today. We will not succeed as a country without an urban indigenous housing strategy. We will not reconcile the past without a strong urban indigenous housing strategy. That strategy must be indigenous led, designed and delivered. Our government, this Parliament, our country has to find ways to support that to get it off the ground and into a position where it is self-driving, self-determining and self-realizing. I give my absolute commitment to residents, to colleagues in the House on this side and to Parliament that I will not rest until that policy is put in place. The throne speech has set the stage for that; the mandate letters have given us the authority to get it done. What we need now is Parliament to stand together and realize this, so that we have four forms of housing for indigenous communities, with the NIOs, and with the indigenous urban housing piece finally and totally delivered during this Parliament. If we do that, we will not be talking about how much we cut homelessness; we will be celebrating how we have ended homelessness. That end to homelessness is within reach if we focus on it. The reason to do it is for all of the reasons I have listed, but the way to do it is to start by solving the indigenous urban housing crisis we have in this country and addressing that issue with our partners from those communities, leading us to a solutions-based mandate in this Parliament.That is why I am going to be supporting the throne speech, it is why I am proud to be the parliamentary secretary in charge of housing and it is why I am absolutely thrilled to get to work in this Parliament.(1420)Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneAlbertaCities and townsClimate change and global warmingCrime and criminalityCulture and creativityDigital mediaDrug use and abuseEconomic developmentEconomic prosperityEnvironmental protectionGreen buildingsGun controlHealthHomelessness and homelessImmigration and immigrantsIndigenous peoplesJob creationLayoffs and job lossesMental healthNational Housing StrategyPharmacarePovertyPrescription drugsProvincial governmentSocial housingTorontoYouth at risk6024307MaximeBlanchette-JoncasRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesLianneRoodLambton—Kent—Middlesex//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of Debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, I have a concern about the part of the throne speech that said the government is going to put more into the mental health of our veterans. I had a veteran call me just this week to say that his wife was receiving psychiatric care, and her doctor informed her that it was good that she came in because the program through VAC was going to be ending in December.This is funding that is available for family members, spouses and children of veterans who have PTSD. The member may not be aware of this but, because of what went on in the last sitting, an individual who was incarcerated for killing a policewoman has received VAC funding in prison, when there is funding available to him to deal with his PTSD. The way the government is dealing with this is to shut down the entire program while it creates new criteria, leaving veterans' families in an untenable situation when we already know there are 40,000 backlogged cases in VAC already.How is it that the government is saying it is going to be doing more for mental health for our veterans and their families in the throne speech when this is the kind of thing that is going on within VAC? Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneMental healthVeteransVeterans benefits6021725602172660217276021728ÉlisabethBrièreSherbrookeÉlisabethBrièreSherbrooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104977ÉlisabethBrièreÉlisabeth-BrièreSherbrookeLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrièreÉlisabeth_Lib.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of Debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMrs. Élisabeth Brière: (1620)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention.We reopened several Veterans Affairs offices across Canada. We invested more than $10 billion in our last term. We will always be there for veterans and we will make decisions in their best interest.Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneMental healthVeteransVeterans benefits6021730CathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89130PatKellyPat-KellyCalgary Rocky RidgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KellyPat_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC): (1215)[English]Mr. Speaker, I too want to take my first opportunity to speak in the House to thank my constituents and all of the volunteers in my campaign.I rise to present a petition signed by a number of my constituents, as well as other individuals from many parts of Canada. They are concerned about veterans' access medical care for PTSD and about a change to the medical form that has made it more difficult for veterans to access this type of care. They call upon the government to either revert to the old form or amend the existing version of the form.Mental healthPetition 431-00004Post-traumatic stress syndromeVeteransVeterans benefits60173406017341GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25452AnthonyRotaHon.Anthony-RotaNipissing—TimiskamingLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RotaAnthony_Lib.jpgOpening of ParliamentSpeech From The ThroneHansard InsertHonourable Senators, members of the House of Commons, ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to address this first session of Canada’s 43rd Parliament.I would like to welcome the 98 new members of this assembly and to welcome back returning members.Your predecessors first sat in Parliament in November 1867. Canada was barely five months old. On the scale of world history, we are still very young, yet much has happened in the world since then. We have matured, and we are here—strong and free. There has been no civil war, no foreign armies marching on our soil. There have been agreements and differences along the way, and lots of arguments, yes, most of them delivered with much eloquence in this very chamber.There are many reasons for our stability. First, the millions of us, whether we are from here or chose to come and live here, share the same desire. We wish to live freely and in peace and harmony. This quest is a bedrock of our nation and informs almost everything we do. We may differ in many ways, yet we move forward as if we were one people, looking for equal opportunities and common ground. This is not by accident, but by choice. It is who we are.And remember as well that our fortunes have relied often on the knowledge and the strategies of the indigenous peoples – what I call indigenous genius, which allowed this nation to thrive. Their deep understanding of our natural world, their intense sense of community, should continue to affect what we do here.For the good of our communities and the future of our children, Kkidji mkwènimaganiwiwatch missiwè anichinapèk achitch nigan abinoudjichak kè pimadiziwatch.Reconciliation must continue.The second bedrock of our stability is our parliamentary system. Your work is vital, because through it, we decide what we really want as a nation. The network of laws and traditions that define what it means to be Canadian safeguards our way of life and paves the way for the future we desire. Your role in the democratic process is a privilege and a responsibility. I know that you embrace it, respecting the wishes and protecting the rights of us all.Because we serve every single Canadian. Canadians of all genders, faiths, languages, customs or skin colours, it is perhaps the most noble undertaking we are entrusted with.And we share the same planet. We know that we are inextricably bound to the same space-time continuum and on board the same planetary spaceship. If we put our brains, our smarts, our altruistic capabilities together, we can do a lot of good. We can help improve the lives of people in our communities, diminish the gaps and inequities here and elsewhere, and have a better chance at tackling serious and pressing issues like climate change, poverty, inequalities and human rights, because global issues know no borders, no timeline and truly need our attention. I am certain that by working together, no challenges are too big. I am convinced that anyone can rise to any occasion if they are willing to work with others to reach a higher goal and to do what is right for the common good.This fall, Canadians went to the polls, and they returned a minority Parliament to Ottawa. This is the will of the people, and you have been chosen to act on it.And so we open this 43rd Parliament with a call for unity in the pursuit of common goals and aspirations. Here in this beautiful chamber, we recognize that Canada’s Senate is increasingly non-partisan, and measures will be taken to help it continue along that path. We are joined by the dedicated public servants who have vowed to work tirelessly on behalf of the people.Canadians have sent a clear message: from young people to seniors, they want their parliamentarians to work together on the issues that matter most to them.In this election, parliamentarians received a mandate from the people of Canada, which ministers will carry out. It is a mandate to fight climate change, strengthen the middle class, walk the road of reconciliation, keep Canadians safe and healthy, and position Canada for success in an uncertain world.These are not simple tasks, but they are achievable if you stay focused on the people who sent you here: moms and dads, grandparents and students, new Canadians, business owners, and workers—people from all walks of life.Every one of them expects their parliamentarians to get to work and deliver on a plan that moves our country forward for all Canadians, including women, members of visible and linguistic minorities, people with disabilities, and members of the LGBTQ2 communities. While your approaches may differ, you share the common belief that government should try, whenever possible, to make life better for Canadians.That includes better health care and affordable housing; lower taxes for the middle class and those who need it most; investments in infrastructure, public transit, science and innovation; less gun violence, and a real plan to fight climate change while creating good, well-paying jobs.These are but a few areas where this Parliament can make a real difference in the lives of Canadians.And as much as they have instructed you to work together, Canadians have also spoken clearly about the importance of their regions and their local needs. The government has heard Canadians’ concerns that the world is increasingly uncertain and that the economy is changing, and in this context, regional needs and differences really matter. Today’s regional economic concerns are both justified and important.The government will work with provinces, territories, municipalities, indigenous groups, stakeholders, industry, and Canadians to find solutions. With dialogue and cooperation, all regions of this country can overcome the challenges of today and realize their full potential in the modern economy.As the government pursues an ambitious plan to move Canada forward, parliamentarians can draw inspiration from Canadians themselves. Canadians have elected you to do important work, and they model—in actions big and small—how you can be effective parliamentarians.Neighbours helping neighbours. Putting community first. Finding common ground, forging bonds, and working together. It is in that distinctly Canadian spirit of collaboration that the government and this Parliament will build on the progress of the last mandate and deliver a better Canada for all Canadians. FIGHTING CLIMATE CHANGECanada’s children and grandchildren will judge this generation by its action—or inaction—on the defining challenge of the time: climate change.From forest fires and floods to ocean pollution and coastal erosion, Canadians are living the impact of climate change every day. The science is clear, and it has been for decades. A clear majority of Canadians voted for ambitious climate action now, and this is what the government will deliver. It will continue to protect the environment and preserve Canada’s natural legacy, and it will do so in a way that grows the economy and makes life more affordable. The government will set a target to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. This goal is ambitious but necessary, for both environmental protection and economic growth.The government will continue to lead in ensuring a price on pollution everywhere in this country, working with partners to further reduce emissions. The government will also help to make energy-efficient homes more affordable and introduce measures to build clean, efficient, and affordable communities; make it easier for people to choose zero-emission vehicles; work to make clean, affordable power available in every Canadian community; work with businesses to make Canada the best place to start and grow a clean technology company; and provide help for people displaced by climate-related disasters. The government will also act to preserve Canada’s natural legacy, protecting 25% of Canada’s land and 25% of Canada’s oceans by 2025. Further, it will continue efforts to reduce plastic pollution, and use nature-based solutions to fight climate change—including planting two billion trees to clean the air and make our communities greener.And while the government takes strong action to fight climate change, it will also work just as hard to get Canadian resources to new markets and offer unwavering support to the hard-working women and men in Canada’s natural resources sectors, many of whom have faced tough times recently.STRENGTHENING THE MIDDLE CLASSCanada’s experience proves that economic growth is the surest way to maintain a good quality of life for citizens. Over the past four years, Canada has seen tremendous growth, and through it all, the government has worked to ensure that all Canadians benefit from Canada’s economic success—cutting taxes, reducing poverty and creating over a million jobs. And in this new mandate, the government will provide even greater support to the middle class and to the most vulnerable Canadians by pursuing tax fairness, continuing to invest in people and growing the economy.As its first act, the government will cut taxes for all but the wealthiest Canadians, giving more money to middle-class families and those who need it most. The government will also act on housing. After drastically reducing poverty across the country in the last mandate, the government will continue its crucial investments in affordable housing. It will also make it easier for more people to buy their first home.The government will give families more time and money to help raise their kids and make before- and after-school care more accessible and affordable. It will cut the cost of cellular and wireless services by 25%. It will strengthen the pensions that so many seniors rely on and increase the federal minimum wage.Understanding that an educated Canada is a successful Canada, the government will give more support to students, be they new graduates struggling with loan repayment or be they heading back to school mid-career to learn new skills.The government will also continue delivering on an economic agenda that will grow a modern Canadian economy. This means moving forward with the new NAFTA to maintain a strong and integrated North American economy. On this and other trade agreements, those in the supply management sectors will be fully and fairly compensated, with many farmers in the dairy sector receiving their first cheques this month.To ensure fairness for all in the new digital space, the government will review the rules currently in place.The government will remove additional barriers to domestic and international trade for businesses and farmers, continue with ambitious investments in infrastructure and reduce red tape so that it is easier to create and run a start-up or small business. And the government will pursue a responsible fiscal plan to keep the economy strong and growing.WALKING THE ROAD OF RECONCILIATIONEvery single person in Canada deserves a real and fair chance at success—and that must include indigenous people.In 2015, the government promised a new relationship with indigenous peoples—one that would help deliver a better quality of life for their families and communities.Real progress has been made over the past four years, including the elimination of 87 long-term drinking water advisories, equity in funding for first nations K-12 education, the passage of historic legislation to protect indigenous languages and affirm indigenous jurisdiction over child and family services, and the completion of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. But we know there is still much work to do.Reconciliation with indigenous people remains a core priority for this government, and it will continue to move forward as a partner on the journey of reconciliation. Indeed, when indigenous people experience better outcomes, all Canadians benefit.Among other things, the government will take action to codevelop and introduce legislation to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the first year of the new mandate, continue the work of eliminating all long-term drinking water advisories on reserves by 2021 and ensure safe drinking water in first nations communities. It will codevelop new legislation to ensure that indigenous people have access to high-quality, culturally relevant health care and mental health services and it will continue work to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls’ calls for justice, in partnership with first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. The government will work with indigenous communities to close the infrastructure gap by 2030 and will continue to move forward together to ensure that indigenous peoples are in control of their own destiny and are making decisions about their communities. It will take new steps to ensure the government is living up to the spirit and intent of treaties, agreements, and other constructive arrangements made with indigenous peoples; ensure that indigenous people who were harmed under the discriminatory child welfare system are compensated in a way that is both fair and timely; and continue to invest in indigenous priorities, in collaboration with indigenous partners.The path to reconciliation is long, but in its actions and interactions, the government will continue to walk it with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.KEEPING CANADIANS SAFE AND HEALTHYWherever they live—in small rural communities or in big cities; in the foothills of the Rockies or the fishing villages along our coastlines; in the far north or along the Canada-U.S. border—all Canadians want to make Canada a better place for themselves, their children and their communities. But there are challenges in making that better future a reality.Year after year, headline after headline, Canadians have seen first-hand the devastating effects of gun violence. Too many lives have been lost, too many families shattered. It is time to show courage, and strengthen gun control. The government will crack down on gun crime, banning military-style assault rifles and taking steps to introduce a buy-back program. Municipalities and communities that want to ban handguns will be able to do so, and the government will invest to help cities fight gang-related violence.We are on the eve of the 30th anniversary of the horrific killing of 14 women at École Polytechnique in Montreal, a day when all Canadians pause to remember and honour those women who were killed because of their gender. And we take stock of the harm that gender-based violence continues to do to Canadian society.The government will take greater steps to address gender-based violence in Canada, building on the gender-based violence strategy and working with partners to develop a national action plan.Ensuring a better quality of life for Canadians also involves putting the right support in place so that when people are sick, they can get the help they need.The government will strengthen health care and work with the provinces and territories to make sure all Canadians get the high-quality care they deserve. It will work with provinces, territories, health professionals and experts in industry and academia to make sure that all Canadians can access a primary care family doctor; partner with provinces, territories, and health professionals to introduce mental health standards in the workplace and to make sure that Canadians are able to get mental health care when they need it; and make it easier for people to get the help they need when it comes to opioids and substance abuse. Canadians have seen the widespread harm caused by opioid use in this country. More needs to be done, and more will be done.Too often, Canadians who fall sick suffer twice: once from becoming ill, and again from financial hardship caused by the cost of their medications. Given this reality, pharmacare is the key missing piece of universal health care in this country. The government will take steps to introduce and implement national pharmacare so that Canadians have the drug coverage they need.Finally, the government will continue to recognize its solemn duty to those who choose to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.In the last mandate, the government invested more than $10 billion to deliver better outcomes for Canada’s veterans. And in this new Parliament, the government will build on that work by improving mental health care supports and helping to ensure that every homeless veteran has a place to call home.POSITIONING CANADA FOR SUCCESS IN AN UNCERTAIN WORLDCanadians expect their leaders to stand up for the values and interests that are core to Canada’s prosperity and security—democracy, human rights, and respect for international law. Canadians expect the government to position Canada and Canadians for success in the world.As Canada is a trading nation, the government will seek out opportunities for Canadian commerce, ingenuity, and enterprise. As a coalition builder, the government will build partnerships with like-minded countries to put Canada’s expertise to work on a global scale, in areas like the promotion of democracy and human rights, the fight against climate change and for environmental protection, and the development and ethical use of artificial intelligence. As an ally, the government will contribute to multilateral efforts to make the world more safe, just, prosperous, and sustainable. The government will renew Canada’s commitment to NATO and United Nations peacekeeping. It will stand up for rules-based international order when that order is put in question, particularly when it comes to matters of trade and digital policy, and it will continue to ensure that Canada’s voice is present at the UN, notably on the UN Security Council. Finally, as a compassionate partner, the government will provide targeted resources for international development assistance, including investments in education and gender equality. It will help the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people live better lives and become strong partners for Canada in turn.Parliamentarians, Canadians are counting on you to fight climate change, strengthen the middle class, walk the road of reconciliation, keep Canadians safe and healthy and position Canada for success in an uncertain world.And with goodwill, humility and a willingness to collaborate, you can do just that. You can raise the bar on what politics is like in this country. After all, the government knows it needs to work with other parliamentarians to deliver results. The mandate of this recent election is a starting point, not the final word. The government is open to new ideas from all parliamentarians, stakeholders, public servants, and Canadians. Ideas like universal dental care are worth exploring, and I encourage Parliament to look into this.Whether it’s fighting money laundering or making parental benefits tax-free, there are good ideas across parties, and this government is ready to learn from you and work with you in the years ahead. Some believe that minority governments are incapable of getting things done, but Canada’s history tells us otherwise. Canada’s Parliament is one of the most enduring and vital institutions in the democratic world. It has delivered a tremendous way of life for the Canadian people—through crisis and prosperity, through majority and minority governments. On December 31, 1966, Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson welcomed Canada’s centennial new year and lit the centennial flame in front of the Parliament Buildings for the first time. In his remarks he said:“Tonight we begin a new chapter in our country’s story. Let the record of that chapter be one of co-operation and not conflict; of dedication and not division; of service, not self; of what we can give, not what we can get. Let us work together as Canadians to make our country worthy of its honoured past and certain of its proud future.”In this 43rd Parliament, you will disagree on many things, but you will agree on a great many more. Focus on your shared purpose: making life better for the people you serve.Never forget that it is an honour to sit in this Parliament. Prove to Canadians that you are worthy holders of these seats and worthy stewards of this place.Members of the House of Commons: you will be asked to appropriate the funds to carry out the services and expenditures authorized by Parliament.Honourable members of the Senate and members of the House of Commons: as you carry out your duties and exercise your responsibilities, may you be guided by Divine Providence.Artificial intelligenceCanada-United States-Mexico AgreementCanadian ForcesCare for childrenCivil and human rightsClimate change and global warmingDemocracyDrinking waterEconomic conditionsEcotechnologyEducation and trainingEnergy conservationEnvironmental protectionFamily doctorsFarming and farmersGender-based violenceGovernment compensationGrants and loans for studentsGreen economyGreenhouse gasesGun controlHealth and social servicesHealth care systemHomelessness and homelessIndigenous languagesIndigenous peoplesIndigenous policyInfrastructureInternational cooperationInternational development and aidInternational tradeInterprovincial tradeJob creationMental healthMiddle classMinimum wageNational Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and GirlsNorth Atlantic Treaty OrganizationOpiates and opioidsPartisanshipPeacekeeping and peacemakingPensions and pensionersPharmacarePharmaceuticalsPlasticsPovertyRegional developmentRenewable energy and fuelSenate and senatorsSenior citizensSexual discriminationSmall and medium-sized enterprisesSocial housingSpeech from the ThroneSupply managementTaxationTrade agreementsTree plantingUnited NationsUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVeteransWireless communicationZero emission vehicles601654160165526016557AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauINTERVENTIONParliament and SessionOrder of BusinessDiscussed TopicProcedural TermPerson SpeakingProvince / TerritoryCaucusSearchResults per pageOrder byTarget search languageSide by SideMaximum returned rowsPagePUBLICATION TYPE