Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to watch the former speaker, the former leader of the opposition, talk about how the Conservative Party tries to play a positive role inside the chamber when, in fact, we have witnessed a destructive force coming from the Conservative Party on the institution of the House of Commons. I do not quite understand why the Conservative Party does not want to work late into the evenings. Millions of Canadians across every region of the country recognize that, at times, one needs to work a little past 6:30 p.m.. The Conservative Party does not want to work late into the evenings. The Conservative Party wants to be able to continue to filibuster. Will the member commit to not bringing forward, let us say, silly motions, like “the House now adjourn for the day” or “so and so now be heard to speak”, even though another Conservative was trying to speak, so that there is a competition between Conservatives, or like concurrence report after concurrence report to prevent government legislation from passing? Will he commit to getting serious and to starting to debate issues here in the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker, the member started his speech by talking about the minority situation. Canadians elected a minority government. In a minority government, the government has the responsibility to consider what the opposition has to say; however, the opposition also has a responsibility. We have witnessed that the official opposition's primary objective is to be a destructive force. It is destructive of this institution, preventing legislation and other measures from ultimately being able to pass or, at the very least, slowing them down. It does not take much to make that occur. If the government is unable to work with an opposition party, then it would not be able to get anything done. At times there is a need to work with the NDP or even an opportunity to work with the Bloc. Would the member not agree that, if there is one opposition party, such as the Conservatives today, then the government has no choice but to work with other opposition parties in order to get things done for Canadians?

Madam Speaker, as members know, one of the fastest-growing communities in Canada is our Indo-Canadian community. Through that, along with the wonderful trade, economic ties and personal ties between Canada and India, there has been an increase in demand for direct flights between Canada and India. I am presenting a petition from many constituents who would like to be able to see a direct flight from Winnipeg to India. At the end of the day, I think it is fairly well established that, through that wonderful relationship between the two countries and the airliners, and the idea of competition, we will hopefully see more direct flights.

Madam Speaker, it has been many years that I have had discussions on issues like anti-scab legislation and final offer selection. I can go back to the very hot debate topics in 1989-90 inside the Manitoba legislature, and I like to think that I have been a strong advocate for anti-scab legislation. I appreciate a number of the comments the member made. I often look at British Columbia or Quebec and to what degree public servants are incorporated into the legislation. I do not necessarily know the details. I think it is a legitimate question. I would like to see it maybe addressed in more detail as it goes to committee. The question I have for the member is this. Does the Conservative Party support passing this legislation to go to committee?

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can provide his thoughts on the Province of Quebec, the Province of British Columbia and, now, the federal government moving toward anti-scab legislation. How can this provide national leadership so that, hopefully, other provinces will look at the legislation, look at what other provinces are doing and look at bringing in more anti-scab legislation across the country?

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with final offer selection. It was a topic of great debate from about 1988-91 in the Manitoba legislature. We had a sunset clause on final offer selection legislation. It was ultimately a compromise by the then NDP premier Howard Pawley that, as opposed to bringing in anti-scab legislation, we had final offer selection. It is an interesting story, but I do not have enough time to talk about it. I am very much interested in the member's position on this legislation. Does he support the legislation going to committee?

Mr. Speaker, I have always enjoyed having exchanges with the leader of the Green Party. I know she gives a great deal of thought to her presentations and, ultimately, her questions. I think some questions are a little easier to answer than others. We have a Prime Minister and through the Prime Minister a Minister of Finance, our Deputy Prime Minister, who have taken the issue very seriously. I do not need to tell the House, because everyone knows, of the ethnic heritage of our Minister of Finance and how she really does have an appreciation of what is taking place in Ukraine today and the impact that oil is having in supporting Russia. I do agree with the leader of the Green Party when she talks about the misconception of the price on pollution as being the sole source of the exorbitant prices that people are having to pay for gas. It is something that is not necessarily new. She put a great deal of emphasis on, today in particular, the war. There is no doubt that it has had a significant impact. I would suggest that excess profits is something that has been ongoing. Governments in the past have tried to deal with it, both at the federal level and at the provincial level. We have seen regulations in different provinces, both in Atlantic Canada and out west, where there have been attempts to deal with some of the excess profits. At the national level, standing committees have attempted to deal with it. I understand that the leader of the Green Party is saying to just have an excess profits tax imposed. I do not fully understand how that works, to be honest. What I do know is that the Minister of Finance has been very open in terms of listening to arguments, in particular those that have come out of the pandemic, with regard to the huge amount of profits in different sectors. I am thinking of the financial area, where we have put in some specific taxes on companies where there was extreme wealth. I do not know to what degree there is a willingness to do something today on that front. I do believe that there is a great deal of discussion taking place. I think that we also have to factor in other elements of the debates. At the end of the day, I do not think anything is off the table, per se. Some might take a little longer to move forward. The cost of fossil fuels, as I indicated, has been a frustration of mine for many years. In fact, shortly after getting elected in 2010, I had a presser that talked about the price of gas and the collusion that was taking place that led to excess profits. Maybe one of the ways we can deal with that is to enhance competition or boycott one particular station until it lowers the price of a litre of gasoline to a certain level. I think that consumers are frustrated. I am really encouraged that in Winnipeg we have a new gas company, 204 Fuel's, which has provided a great deal of competition. I can say that where that gas station exists, the price of gas has actually been going down; its price is consistently lower than everyone else's.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the leader of the Green Party that the government is very much aware, particularly the Minister of Finance, of the many hardships that many Canadians are having to endure. Not that long ago, we had inflation rates that were close to 8%, I think in June 2022, and we are finally getting inflation rates under control. The cost of providing fuel for transportation does have an impact through the gouging that we all have seen. Is there a policy alternative? I can assure the member that the Minister of Finance is looking at a wide spectrum of options. The idea is to support all Canadians and have their backs.

Mr. Speaker, just to start off, I have a very brief comment. What the member highlights is a success story that many of us could easily relate to within our own constituencies or jurisdictions. We often talk about individuals, but we do not talk enough about small- and medium-sized businesses and the profound, positive impact they have in our communities. I am very respectful of and admire the work of those entrepreneurs, those small businesses that invest their time and resources. Ultimately, they take a substantial chance in terms of creating opportunities for literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people. I just want to tip my hat to the many entrepreneurs and business people in our communities. That principle applies in every region, where we get them coming to the plate, helping to build a healthier and stronger community. Having said that, I know that the member opposite and others have been very concerned with regard to the whole ArriveCAN issue and what has been taking place with it. Interestingly enough, I would suggest to the member that it does not really matter what side of the House one sits on; all members are very concerned. I do not think there is a member inside the House who does not have a question or two, in terms of what has actually taken place. We have to put things into the proper perspective. At the time when this was occurring, the federal government was literally spending billions of dollars during a worldwide pandemic. There were a number of demands on a wide variety of different departments. That does not justify any sort of abuse, in any fashion whatsoever. Unfortunately, when that kind of money is spent, when those types of programs are created, there are going to be mistakes. This was a very big mistake. The Government of Canada has recognized that and has taken the actions necessary to ensure that there is some justice at the end of the day. The Government of Canada values the tax dollar just as much as the Conservative Party does. We want to get to the bottom of this issue, and we will do so. After all, the ministers responsible, either directly or indirectly, have been wanting to see results, both internally and externally. At the end of the day, we expect the procurement process to be followed properly. When that does not take place, we have to ensure that there is an appropriate consequence. This has been, and always will be, the case. This is not the first government where we have seen some things go wrong at times within procurement. What is important is how the government reacts when something does go wrong. The government has reacted very positively and quickly on the issue, whether it is through those internal reviews that we see taking place or the comments in the standing committees. We will continue to ensure that there is a consequence to any sort of inappropriate behaviour in this whole issue.

Mr. Speaker, that is just not true. There is no conspiracy out there whereby we are seeing all these public dollars being funnelled to one community, whether it is a political community or another community. That does not exist. It is in the minds of some members in the opposition who like to try to tie the word “scandal” to everything that takes place, believing that if they continue to say it time and time again, whether in social media or inside the House, they will be able to successfully fool Canadians. I would suggest that Canadians are a lot smarter than that. If we take a look at the budgetary and legislative actions that we have taken over the last number of years, the proof is in the pudding. It was right from day one that we saw substantial tax breaks for Canada's middle class, the enhancement of child benefit programs and supporting our seniors. The proof is in the pudding, and we will continue to be there for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of things to say. First, to answer specifically, the member tried to say that, for eight years, the Government of Canada has not done anything with the project. I can tell the member that there are numerous projects across the country the Government of Canada has moved forward on. It is not quite as simple as seeing a square block of land, clicking our heels and making it happen. Sometimes things take time. The member opposite did not tell the House what some of the complications are. I suspect there are some complications, and he might even know of some of those complications, but he is being very selective in what he is saying. Rather, he wants to pass the blame. He started off talking about how housing is in such a crisis. His current leader was the minister of housing under Stephen Harper and did absolutely nothing on housing. In the last 50 years, there has not been a government more proactive on the housing file than this government. We finally have a government that developed a housing strategy. We finally have a government that came out with new programs, such as the housing accelerator fund. We finally have a government that is working with other levels of government. What does the Conservative Party do? It votes against every measure we have. We have had agreements with municipalities and so forth, far superior and in greater numbers than the Conservative Party could ever imagine, let alone put into place. At the end of the day, there is absolutely no consistency coming from the other side. I can say that, as a national government, we have led very strongly on the housing file. It is not just the federal government alone that is responsible. It takes provinces and municipalities. The good news is that we are working not only with provinces and municipalities but also with non-profit organizations and other stakeholders because we recognize the need for and importance of housing, unlike the Conservative Party, which wants to try to paint a picture that is not complete. The government will continue to work where it can to provide ongoing support for housing. Our actions to date have seen and will continue to see the development of tens of thousands of new housing units. However, every time we bring in some sort of initiative, the initial response from the Conservative Party is to criticize it. Then it wonders why it is that we are not co-operating or doing some of the projects it is identifying. I can assure the member that the department is aware of the request and that there are discussions and dialogue in the Cornwall area on the issue. We waited for a while to try to get the Kapyong Barracks in Winnipeg, a large parcel of land that involved a great deal of negotiations. It took several years to make it happen. We know that the government, through its different departments, is looking at ways we can enhance housing opportunities. We are looking at ways we can work with municipalities. We can contrast that to what the Conservative Party is talking about or what it did when it was in office. I can tell members that it is literally night and day. Therefore, it is a bit much to sit and listen to a member being critical of the government and trying to give a false impression that we are not doing enough on the housing file when I witnessed for a number of years, when I was in opposition, a government that did nothing. We can contrast that to a government that has made historic funding and has worked with other levels of government, unlike any other government in the last 50-plus years.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member knows full well he is not far from the Minister of Housing or from the Minister of Transport, and he could cross over and ask those questions on the side. He could also check with the local municipality or write to the departments. I would be interested in seeing that correspondence. I suspect the municipality and other groups, such as indigenous communities, have in fact been working hand in hand with the federal government to try to work this issue through. I applaud them on their actions. Sometimes there is no simple answer, or at least an answer that is going to satisfy the politics the member is trying to bring forward. I say that only because of the manner in which he started the discussion. He did not start the discussion by asking, “What about Cornwall?” It was more about being critical of the national government and the national government not doing enough on the whole housing file. That is how he started the discussion, and now, he wants to conclude it as if he is being a strong advocate for Cornwall. This government will continue to work with the people of Cornwall and others to try to resolve the problem as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I reflect on this, the whole discussion and debate that has taken place over the last number of years has been fairly extensive. Going back to the Supreme Court of Canada's Carter decision of 2015 and to the amount of committee and House of Commons' time, there has been a great of deal of discussion, justifiably so. It is important to recognize that medical assistance in dying is not necessarily a new issue. It has been well discussed in many different forms, even the issue of mental health well-being. I wonder if the minister could provide his thoughts on the journey taken to bring us to this point today and on why it is so critically important that it pass by the end of this week.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the member's comments. One thing that stuck in my mind was when he made reference to the fact that the Province of Quebec took a number of years to design its legislation. It is important to demonstrate the contrast with the federal government back in 2015; the member made reference to the Supreme Court decision. We had a very short window to get the legislation passed. I personally do not believe, and I suspect that no one really believed, that the legislation at the time was absolute, in terms of being perfect. However, we needed to get it through. Could he reflect on the many discussions and debates inside and outside the chamber with Canadians as a whole, with respect to how important it was that, at least, we bring forward and get the legislation in, in order to meet court requirements?

Madam Speaker, I am not too sure if the member actually understood the question that was just posed to him. It points out a major issue within the Conservative Party. The Conservatives have said that they do not support it, yet they did not vote in favour of the motion that ultimately, by it passage, will guarantee that this motion is able to pass Bill C-62. What is the essence of Bill C-62? It is to provide a three-year waiting period, so the concern that he has does not take effect come March 17 this year. If this legislation does not pass, what the Conservatives are complaining about will actually turn into a reality. One would think that they would understand that. I can appreciate that a majority, in listening to the discussion, is of the same opinion as the member across the way. If they support what they say, then they should support Bill C-62. If they do not vote for Bill C-62 and the bill does not pass, there will be no three-year extension. I am very disappointed in the manner in which this issue is being debated. It is a very serious issue. I remind members that the reason we have the debate today is because of a Supreme Court of Canada decision back in 2015, which the then prime minister Stephen Harper did not act upon. That was back in early 2015. After the 2015 general election, when we assumed office in November 2015, one of the first things we did was look at the legislative agenda. We did some positive things, but one of the things we had to deal with was the Supreme Court of Canada decision, which the Conservatives actually ignored. That meant we had to bring in MAID legislation. It was not an option. Is there a member of the Conservative Party today who would stand up and say that there was an actual option, that we did not have to respect the Charter of Rights, the rights that are guaranteed to Canadians from coast to coast to coast? If one reflects on the debates that took place back then, it is quite the opposite with respect to what we are witnessing today. Back then—

Madam Speaker, members of the Conservative Party might not like what I have to say, but it is the truth, and sometimes the truth hurts. If we go back to the original debates in May, we will find a great deal more compassion being expressed on the floor of the House of Commons, on all sides. Whether they were Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats or any others, members demonstrated very clearly the difficulty of what Parliament had to do in bringing in MAID to respect the Supreme Court of Canada decision. Today during the debate, we witnessed the leader of the Conservative Party standing on a point of order on something completely irrelevant to the debate, to attempt to table a document. Why did he? He just could not wait until question period, I guess, which begins after statements by members that start in about 15 or 20 minutes. We should listen to what some of the Conservative speeches have been about. Some Conservatives, the last couple in particular, have stood in their places and given a false impression that the legislation would be like suicide on demand. The member for Battlefords—Lloydminster said that today someone feeling depressed due to mental health issues could go to a doctor and book an appointment to commit suicide, with the government's support, on Friday. Members of the Conservative Party are spreading misinformation on such a sensitive issue. These are very difficult things that Canadians have to deal with every day. Yesterday the member for Cumberland—Colchester referred to 12,000 or 13,000 people being killed in a very ad lib fashion, implying that the legislation just allows people to be killed. From my perspective, the decision to access MAID is not easy; it is a very difficult one. Family members and individuals are experiencing some very difficult times in dealing with a real-life situation. Conservatives, yesterday and today, are virtually making a mockery of it and spreading misinformation on such an important issue. What happened to the compassion of 2015-16 and even 2017? At that time, there seemed to be a sense in the chamber that, yes, at times there are going to be disagreements if members feel very passionate about an issue, as they should, but there was also a much higher sense of co-operation as members shared the experiences they were being told about by their constituents. The member for Portage—Lisgar said that people are going to food banks and are thinking of committing suicide because of the cost of living. There are a number of things that come to my mind that speak to the manner in which individuals across the way make those types of stupid statements. That is, quite frankly, what they are; they are not legitimate contributions, such as discussion about supports and services would be, to the debate on such an important issue that the House is having to address. In the debates taking place in 2015-16, we heard a great deal about issues like hospice and palliative care. We wanted to ensure that MAID legislation would not in any way be utilized as a direct result of not having proper services and systems in place to provide assurances to those individuals who were feeling so compelled to actually access MAID. Those are the types of things that I think really contributed a great deal back then. Today, in contrast, Conservatives will say, “What about the $4.5 billion that the Liberal Party made a commitment to?” Members are right in that there was a substantial commitment by the government to deal with the issue of mental health, and the commitment was significant: several billions of dollars over five years. It is one of the reasons that the health care agreements we have put into place, which were highlighted last year, of just under $200 billion over 10 years, are to support health care not only today but also in future generations that will benefit by that sort of investment. Furthermore, the Minister of Health is working with provinces, coming up with agreements that deal with things like mental health and services. We recognize how important it is to ensure that these services are being supported. Unlike a number of members from the Conservative Party, and I do not want to label them all, at least not at this point, this is a government that has continued to work with, in particular, provincial jurisdictions and other stakeholders in different forums in order to provide assurances that the people who are accessing MAID are, in fact, being informed in a very tangible way of the types of services available. In no way whatsoever is it as simple as their just saying, “I want this and I will get it”, and then two days later receiving it. We can look at the amount of public attention and debate that has taken place on issues such as palliative and hospice care since the MAID introduction, which I believe have been greatly enhanced. I would like to think that provinces, which are ultimately responsible for the public administration of health care services, have taken note and understand that they too have a responsibility because they are the ones delivering the services that Canadians expect. The federal government has recognized that by supporting things such as the encouragement of long-term care standards and by providing substantial finances to ensure that provinces are better able to meet the demands on health care services. With respect to what I said earlier in regard to mental health, there are serious commitments that we continue to live up to and work on with other jurisdictions. I have confidence, as I indicated yesterday, in the health care professionals, the social workers and the other individuals who have the expertise and confidence in the individual who feels that MAID might be the avenue for them to pursue. There is a great deal of effort put into every situation, and I have confidence in the system. Members can correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot recall one province or premier in Canada that has clearly said that MAID is not working. The provinces are asking for the three-year extension in one aspect of MAID: where mental health is the sole reason for the request. The issue of the sole underlying medical condition being a mental illness was added to the original MAID legislation, then brought in as a form of legislation and allowed a period for provinces and jurisdictions to have time to get what is necessary in place so Canadians could be served. We then found that the provinces required more time. There were a number of provincial governments not saying to get rid of MAID, but rather saying that they needed more time for the implementation of that aspect of it. That is in essence why we have the legislation that we have before us today. However, if we listen to members of the Conservative Party, we will find that they give no indication of supporting Bill C-62. It will be interesting to see how they actually vote. Logically, I would think they would vote in favour of the bill. If they do not vote in favour of Bill C-62, and, for whatever reasons, the legislation were not to pass, ultimately the criterion of sole underlying medical condition of mental illness would take effect on March 17 of this year. Therefore, it is important that members, no matter what side of the debate they happen to be on, would be in favour of the legislation because it is a direct response to what is being asked of the Government of Canada by our partners that are ultimately responsible for administering the legislation. Members opposite will often try to say that it is up to the government. It is important to highlight what I mentioned at the very beginning: The reason we have MAID legislation today is that in 2015, the Carter decision by the Supreme Court in essence said we had to bring it in. There was no choice, if, of course, we respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will repeat what I said yesterday: There was a great deal of consultation, literally hundreds of hours of different types of meetings, including standing committees, chamber debate, outside meetings in ridings, canvassing and petitions. Even though there were all sorts of mechanisms to provide input, at the end of the day, I believe that the legislation met a threshold to, in good part, deal with the concerns of the Supreme Court of Canada and to respect the Charter of Rights. That was followed by a decision in appeal court in Quebec giving us another obligation to improve the legislation and that is exactly what we did. We continue today to look for ways to improve the legislation. I believe it is a reflection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If members of the Conservative caucus are saying that they do not support the MAID legislation, then I would question whether they actually support the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would further add that the leader of the Conservative Party's general attitude—

Mr. Speaker, it is really important that we do not try to trivialize the important issue of MAID. I have witnessed Conservatives, many different Conservatives, standing to talk about MAID as something that someone could just go to the doctor today and say, “Jeez, I would like to be able to commit suicide. Can I have an appointment on Friday?” It may not have been in those exact words, but that is very close to what Conservative members have implied in the chamber today, and they have implied it previously. It does a great disservice to the issue at hand. I would suggest that this whole “suicide on demand” the Conservative members want to classify it as is not contributing positively to the debate. I would ask Conservative members, in particular, to take the debate more seriously, and let us not go to the extreme. I have more confidence in health care professionals, social workers, family members or the individuals who are thoroughly consulted well before any sort of a decision is made.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member emphasized how this is a deeply personal issue, to use her words. That is why, at the beginning of my comments earlier today before question period, I tried to amplify why it is so important that the House reflect on what brought us here today. I reflect on the debates that took place in early 2016, which were conducted in more of a non-partisan approach where members of all political parties talked about what is a very important issue. Nothing has changed in the sense of the importance of the issue. We are talking about an issue of death, and we see that Conservatives are putting a twist on it in an attempt to politicize the issue to the degree that there is some silliness as to what is being implied. I like to think that anyone who is even entertaining the idea of accessing MAID takes it very seriously. That is the reason why, in good part, I believe that every member of the House, party politics aside, should be looking at what the Supreme Court of Canada right back to 2015, and the Charter of Rights, said our responsibility is as legislators: to come forward with good, sound public policy. I believe that over the years, including today with Bill C-62, we have been addressing a very important issue and that the three-year extension is needed because of the response we are getting from stakeholders, in particular our provinces.

Mr. Speaker, I would pick up on the point that we have an infrastructure, and part of that infrastructure in Parliament is the special committees. I am an optimist in the sense that I hope we will see the special committee, at some point in time in the future, continue to do a lot of the fine work it has already done to date. Hopefully it would be of a depoliticized nature, where members, no matter where they are from, the Senate or the chamber, and from any political party, would be able to entertain a very healthy discussion. I believe, in the long run, given the very nature and importance of the legislation, that this is by far the best way to go. It is because of the deadline of March 17 that we are having to push it through as quickly as we are today.

Mr. Speaker, a combination of many different factors has ultimately brought us to the point where we are today. One of those factors is that just last week I stood in my place and made the suggestion that we sit until midnight; however, I required unanimous consent, and there were some in the chamber who did not support the idea of sitting extra hours later into the evening so we could have had more debate on the issue. It is not our lack of desire to see additional debate. Historically, in the last six years, we have had a great deal of debate inside the chamber and outside the chamber in communities across the country. I suspect we are going to continue to have more, as was pointed out in the previous question in regard to the special committee and the need to have it reconvene. I truly believe that this is going to be an ongoing debate, keeping in mind that the legislation first came in not that long ago, in 2016. It took a number of years before the Province of Quebec was able to bring in legislation, whereas we had a Supreme Court decision timeline we had to work against. I suspect that is one of the reasons we needed to make some of the amendments we have made today.

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised in how the Conservatives are approaching the debate. They have made it very clear that they do not support the expansion of MAID with regard to mental health. However, it will automatically take effect come March 17, unless this legislation passes. They seem to want to prevent the legislation from passing, especially if we take a look at the vote. Does the Conservative Party want this legislation to pass and, if so, will they support it?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of things the member has said, and I like to think that all of us have personal feelings on a wide spectrum of issues, this being one of them for me personally. Having said that, I understand and appreciate the importance of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think it is good to bring responsible public policy in regard to MAID. Does the member share in the concerns that I have with respect to the Conservative Party's propaganda of spreading things that are grossly exaggerated, like people going to a food bank, feeling poor and wanting to apply for MAID? At the end of the day, they try to make it sound as if one can go and apply today and have suicide-by-government on the Friday. I personally believe that is damaging to the whole debate we are having.

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

Madam Speaker, the matter we are debating today is a good, positive story. There are indigenous communities from coast to coast to coast that have worked alongside and in many ways led the initiative with the Government of Canada in bringing forward the national council for reconciliation. I emphasize the importance of the recommendations in all the calls to action because that is one of the issues the council will continue to monitor. Everything I have talked about, the council itself will be looking at. Ultimately, it will hold governments of whatever political stripe to some sense of accountability with respect to indigenous-led reconciliation and issues. I believe that is a positive thing. I believe this government has been very progressive in moving forward with good intent, often following the leadership of indigenous people, in dealing with the calls to action. Today, we are looking at call to action number 53, which states: We call upon the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, to enact legislation to establish a National Council for Reconciliation. The legislation would establish the council as an independent, national, oversight body with membership jointly appointed by the Government of Canada and national Aboriginal organizations, and consisting of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members. Its mandate would include, but not be limited to, the following: i. Monitor, evaluate, and report annually to Parliament and the people of Canada on the Government of Canada’s post-apology progress on reconciliation to ensure that government accountability for reconciling the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown is maintained in the coming years; ii. Monitor, evaluate, and report to Parliament and the people of Canada on reconciliation progress across all levels and sectors of Canadian society, including the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Calls to Action. iii. Develop and implement a multi-year National Action Plan for Reconciliation, which includes research and policy development, public education programs, and resources; iv. Promote public dialogue, public/private partnerships, and public initiatives for reconciliation. Although that is call to action number 53, it also deals with calls to action 54, 55 and 56, if not in entirety in good part. I believe that that has been driven through indigenous leadership, which is why we are at the point we are today. There were amendments brought forward by the Senate to further enhance Bill C-29. I will quickly highlight them. They are as follows: the use of the term “indigenous governing body”; the purpose of the council; narrowing and defining the scope of the council's functions; clarifying English and French; indigenous governing bodies and duty to consult; bilateral mechanisms; tabling of the annual report; functions of the council; disclosure of information by the Government of Canada; and the preamble to use first nations, Inuit and Métis. There has been a great deal of effort that has gone far beyond any one individual or political party. As I have said in my comments thus far, this has been led and driven by indigenous community leaders. What we are debating today are the results of that. Not only did the House hear the legislation, review it, debate it, have it go to committee and then ultimately pass it, but also the Senate of Canada has recognized, through its process, how this legislation could be further enhanced. I believe that the Senate has done a wonderful service in working with indigenous people and making sure that the legislation is healthier as a direct result. There are many members in the chamber, including myself, who would like to see this legislation pass sooner as opposed to later. We recognize that the legislative agenda is fairly packed. There are a lot of things on the government agenda. We have called this legislation and, even though we have had debates on it, hopefully we will get some sense from all members of its general support. Once all is said and done, there is a lot more we can do. I believe the location of the office has yet to be determined. I would like to see it in the city of Winnipeg. I suggest that because, as a government, we have committed just under $60 million to a permanent home for the national centre. That is something that I believe will be a great resource going forward. I have had the opportunity to take a look at how all of us can play a role in reconciliation. I was really quite impressed when one of the local schools, just recently, in Seven Oaks School Division, decided that it wanted to fly an indigenous flag alongside the Canadian flag at the front of the school. This was actually driven by children. Children started that campaign and wrote to the school superintendent. The superintendent first came back, as is my understanding, saying that they could maybe just put up a flag stand, attached to the school. The children of this elementary school said that, no, they would like to have a permanent pole. The superintendent ultimately took it to the school division as an idea that came out of the classroom, out of the school. That flag is flying there today, alongside the Canadian flag. There was a wonderful feeling in that gymnasium, within the elementary school. They brought back a couple of the students who were in grade 6 when they initiated the letter campaign. Throughout the individuals speaking, I felt that the most touching part was when children going up to the mic talked about reconciliation and why it was important. For me, education is an important aspect of reconciliation. All people of all backgrounds need to be engaged in the process, like on the statutory holiday when I walk along with indigenous people and others and when I go to the St. John's Park in recognition of indigenous reconciliation. It is more than indigenous people who are there. I think that is an important component to this. We see that in the makeup of the proposed council itself. There would be the opportunity to recognize, through education, accountability and transparency, how we can continue to move forward, no matter what political entity is in power. I would like to think that we all have a role to play. I look forward to continuing the debate, whether it is on the national council, children, language, the statutory holiday I just made reference to, or the murdered indigenous women and children. There are still indigenous women and children who are going missing and who are being murdered. These are issues that I would like to think most, if not all, members of the House give serious thought to, and by doing that, they can get behind positive legislation such as what we are debating today. I hope the legislation passes quickly and passes with unanimous support.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is disappointing in that this is such a serious issue. A member of the Conservative Party is being disrespectful to Canadians, as a whole, by taking the issue so lightly and making light of a decision that is so difficult. The member feels it is okay to say that well over 10,000 people were killed. How insensitive can a person be? These are decisions of the greatest difficulty, and the way the member has behaved is disrespectful.

Madam Speaker, first of all, no government has invested more in mental health than under this Prime Minister and this Liberal government. What a joke coming across from the other way. They are trying to give the impression that someone who is having suicidal thoughts could just go to a place and get it rubber-stamped, giving them a pill or an injection. That is just stupid. If the member is so brave, why will she not go to any high school in Winnipeg North and have a debate on the issue with me? Will she accept that challenge? Let us have a debate, let us invite a few people over in a high school. That way we cannot be accused of trying to make it lopsided, one way or another. Will she come to Winnipeg North?

Madam Speaker, the member asks a question about why the legislation is there. I want to amplify the fact that many regions of the country, I believe it is seven provinces and others, are looking to get themselves into a better position to provide the level of expertise and other issues related to it, to have it in place. Stakeholders and provinces are asking for the delay. That is the reason for it. The question I have for the member is specific. What does he think about the Conservatives intentionally misleading Canadians, giving a false impression that if people are going to commit suicide, they can apply and the government will assist them in committing suicide? It is ridiculous, yet the Conservatives seem to think they can get away with saying those outrageous things.

I would like to offer some input for the benefit of the Chair and for all hon. members. The revised answer that was just tabled is in response to a question of privilege raised by the member for Edmonton Strathcona last week respecting the answers provided to Order Paper Question No. 2070. The response contained inaccurate information because of an error in introducing the answer. I understand that, last Friday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs reached out to the member for Edmonton Strathcona to apologize on this issue. I would like to thank my hon. colleagues for their understanding and to assure all hon. members that the government acknowledges and accepts that it is the right of members to have the best information available to do their important work. Further, Madam Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.