Senator Gold: Thank you for that question. The government has announced what is called the Recognized Employer Pilot, or REP, which will help streamline processes for employers with the highest standards of worker protection. REP will be more responsive to labour market shortages and will reduce the administrative burden for repeat employers who demonstrate a history of program compliance while ensuring that temporary foreign workers are protected.

Senator Martin: As I said, with the letters from the territories and the provinces and with the provincial counterparts who are working tirelessly on assessing the readiness — on a personal level, I have my own examples of why allowing MAID for people with mental illness as a sole underlying condition is frightening to me. But in terms of the readiness, I do believe that we must listen to the provinces and territories. That’s why we have this three-year extension. I can’t say when that will be. I will leave it to the experts and those in charge of assessing the readiness to tell us when they are ready.

Senator Plett: You provide information that isn’t correct, it’s misinformation, leader. You are constantly lecturing us here about misinformation — the Conservatives — but here we have a blatant example of misrepresentation, mismanagement and secrecy, leader. The Trudeau government is not worth the cost and will never fix our budget.

What is the current total of these contracts now, leader? Is it more than $208 million?

Senator Gold: I don’t have a figure that I can provide by way of an answer, senator, but thank you for your question.

Senator Gold: I will certainly add those to my inquiries. Thank you for the question.

Senator Kutcher: For the purposes of everyone being exhausted and tired tonight, the last thing people want is for me to repeat that question. Thank you.

Senator Martin: I am not quite sure what you are asking, senator, but I know you bring expertise from your profession, and on this, we do disagree. However, the fact that we heard from various experts who have such differing opinions is what, I think, made me and other parliamentarians pause as to when, because when we do go forward, it needs to be at the right time for our nation.

In terms of your question, I didn’t quite understand. You can repeat it if you like, but I don’t know if you want to ask it again.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I will have to go reread my speech. I’m not sure I cited that issue as the central reason as to why, in fact, there is not a consensus within the communities of physicians, regulators, health care ministers and the like. Nor am I in a position to competently predict what kind of consensus may emerge among assessors — psychiatrists, notably, but others — because other health care professionals are involved in the process.

Work is being done on that, to be sure, and one of the reasons that has been cited for needing more time is to translate the fairly general practice guidelines into more specific guidance for those in the assessment process, within individual institutions, individual provinces or across this country.

Hansard will reveal what I said, but the purpose was not to zero in on that specific issue.

The government is confident that three years is a reasonable time. It’s a clear target as opposed to an indeterminate one, and, therefore, the system will be sufficiently ready so that MAID can be administered more consistently and safely across this country.

Senator Woo: I won’t put words in your mouth, but irremediability is, of course, at the heart of the legislation, because it is the triggering criteria for MAID of any kind to be offered.

If, in fact, after three years, the practitioners are unable to come to a consensus on what is irremediable in MAID MD‑SUMC, is it not the case, then, that someone seeking MAID MD‑SUMC would simply have to find the right practitioner who is willing to offer it because of a diagnosis of irremediability?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Honestly, no, I wasn’t aware of that. That was in one of the briefs submitted to Quebec’s commission on end-of-life care. They discuss the situation in Belgium and in the Netherlands. It’s a bit different. All right, then, I’ll take you at your word.

But there is certainly more than one expert who’s uncertain about the irremediability of psychiatric disorders. It’s a difficult debate. You mention evidence and the fact that it’s beyond dispute, but I think that the Council of Canadian Academies, a respected scientific organization, also reached similar findings on the issue of irremediability. These are professionals, but not physicians only. From what I understand, they are also scientists from various backgrounds. That, too, is not insignificant. It is a social debate. Yes, physicians are very important, but I think the debate is broader than that.

[English]

Senator Kutcher: Will the senator take a question?

Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for that answer, Senator Gold. I think it’s pretty clear that 2% and 2% are the same number.

The issue here also is that people who have a mental disorder but have a concurrent physical illness are now eligible, even if it’s the mental disorder that is the primary reason for their request. There doesn’t seem to be a problem currently in providing the kind of comprehensive approach and support and everything else that your government is talking about necessarily having for people who have just a sole mental disorder.

Help us understand why this is not discriminatory. If you have a mental illness and a physical illness, it’s okay, but if you just have a mental illness, it’s not okay.

Senator Gold: As I tried to explain in my discussion of the Charter, the position of the government is that it is not discriminatory because the nature of the cases is different. When there is a grievous and irremediable physical condition, whether or not it’s accompanied by a mental disorder, that is a qualitatively different kind of assessment, it is submitted, than if someone is presenting only with a mental disorder as the underlying condition.

The suffering is the same. The desire for access to MAID is the same, but the actual assessment is going to be done differently because, unless I am incorrect, I believe that those who qualify for MAID under Track 2 — or Track 1, for that matter — are qualifying because of the irremediable physical disability or ailment, and not because they have, as some do, though not all do, a mental disorder that accompanies it.

Senator Kutcher: Thank you so much for your contribution to the debate. It’s very appreciated, and I do appreciate the consistency in your position. I don’t agree with it, but I appreciate your consistency.

You talked about necessity for medical consensus before we allowed medical assistance in dying for a sole mental disorder, but we are all aware that there is no medical consistency on MAID itself. In fact, we have heard lots of testimony in our committees that there are lots of physicians in the palliative care community who don’t want MAID and say it’s bad and to forget it. There’s no consensus.

How can we allow MAID for people with a physical illness when there’s no consensus but deny people with a mental illness when there’s no consensus?

[Translation]

Hon. Iris G. Petten: Honourable senators, sealing has been a vital industry in Newfoundland and Labrador for centuries. To the Labrador Inuit in particular, the seal was, until recently, a staple component of a way of life. The meat was eaten or fed to the dogs, the fat was rendered into oil for light and food, the skin was used for clothing, boots and a myriad of other purposes in addition to trade with European merchants. The demand for seal products led to the development of both inshore and offshore fisheries, driving economic growth.

In 1965, Canada initiated its first seal protection regulations requiring humane harvesting practices and licensing for all harvesters, alongside increased monitoring efforts by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The government later implemented a seal harvest management plan with continued emphasis on sustainability, scientific oversight and humane practices, reflecting a commitment to the integral role of the seal harvest in a rural economy with zero tolerance for any inhumane practices.

Issues such as seal overpopulation is more and more in the news as of late. We know that the excessive numbers of pinnipeds along Canada’s three coastlines are not only creating an imbalance within our marine ecosystems, but it is also causing detrimental effects on the health and conservation of fish stocks.

I recently heard from a community member who said that this issue has two dimensions of equal importance. First is the survival and continuance of properly managed fur, sealing and fishing industries, thus ensuring the ability of rural communities to succeed. Then there is the issue of destroying the propaganda that has defined us as murderers and, somehow, a lesser people — this message really struck me.

We are also just under a month away from what some refer to as the “International Day of Action Against Canadian Seal Hunting.” Just the name of this day demonstrates the need to work together to ensure disinformation, as it relates to the sealing industry, is being countered at all levels of government. Let us fight these misleading campaigns with educational campaigns. Let us promote Canadian seal products as the sustainable, high‑quality and eco-friendly options that they are, including for omega-3 oil, meat, accessories and more.

The harmful rhetoric spread by some organizations cannot be permitted to be the only voice on national and international stages. We must unite our voices in support of our fisheries from coast to coast to coast. Thank you.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, please. I would like Senator Gold to read that Notice of Motion in English. The translation was very poor at the start of it, and I could not understand.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, my question concerns, again, the failed $60 million “ArriveScam” app. Last week, two senior officials who have been suspended in relation to the “ArriveScam” told a committee of the other place that there is an ongoing cover-up related to this scandal.

Liberal MPs have shut down committee meetings into “ArriveScam,” including a meeting last fall, just as the Auditor General was about to testify. Last week, Liberal MPs filibustered a motion to compel the two-man GC Strategies to appear before the committee or face arrest by the Sergeant-at-Arms.

The Trudeau government is certainly acting like it has something to hide — is it not, leader? Who gave the order to shut down the meetings and stall for time? I want the name, please.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, notwithstanding the order adopted by the Senate on September 21, 2022, the sitting of Wednesday, February 28, 2024, continue beyond 4 p.m., if Government Business is not completed, and adjourn at the earlier of the completion of Government Business or midnight; and

That the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade be authorized to meet after 4 p.m. on that day for the purpose of considering Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, even though the Senate may then be sitting, with rule 12-18(1) being suspended in relation thereto.

[English]