Bill C-62

An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2

This enactment amends An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying) to provide that persons are not eligible, until March 17, 2027, to receive medical assistance in dying if their sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness.

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am sure my colleague's intention is not to exploit the pain of people who have been enduring irremediable suffering for decades. However, she is repeating an argument that we have heard often in this debate and that I feel is something completely separate.

The issue of access to primary mental health care has nothing to do with the decision we must make on whether to expand medical assistance in dying since, with regard to access to care, these people would not qualify under the criteria and guidelines of the expert report.

I do want us to advocate for better care. I wholeheartedly agree with that, but that is another debate. However, there are people who have been receiving care for decades and who are suffering, and the government wants to tell them to keep suffering for three years.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I believe access to care really is a key issue. I agree that having a continuum of suffering is unacceptable.

I am not against MAID eligibility for people who are suffering due to a disease and who have shown that their suffering is real. We must act. However, we do not have to act immediately, on March 17.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, can the member share a bit more around the decision to use time allocation? Why is it important that we get this legislation put through? What are the impacts on people in our communities if we do not?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is not an easy choice. I was in this place in the Harper years, when time allocation started to be used on every single bill. In those days, the Liberals were against it, as I was. Things change. Whoever is in power thinks that the tools that were used by the last government, which they used to decry, are okay if they are efficient for getting things done, because might makes right. However, it is and always will be wrong, whether the Conservatives or the Liberals use it.

This time, we are up against it. We have no choice. We are responsible grown-ups. We have to get this bill through so that we do not have a default reality that none of us would vote for.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, the decisions made in this place have a direct impact on the lives of Canadians. That impact can be no greater than when it is a matter of life or death, and this is exactly the case with this piece of legislation. As members of Parliament, we have a duty to serve in the best interests of Canadians; this duty must extend to the protection of the most vulnerable in society.

I should note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Portage—Lisgar.

The expansion of medically assisted death to those suffering from mental illness is dangerous and, simply, reckless. It is inevitable that the expansion of MAID to those suffering solely from a mental illness would result in the deaths of Canadians who could have gotten better. This is not to say that those with mental illness should be left alone to suffer. Recovery is possible, and we cannot give up on these individuals and their loved ones. Canadians suffering from mental illness need and deserve support and treatment. They may feel that their situation is hopeless, but the antidote is hope, not death. They deserve government policy and a health care system that are compassionate and responsive to their needs. Where there are gaps or shortfalls in our care system, we should prioritize working alongside our provincial partners to address them. That, not expanding MAID, should be the priority.

The Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying heard loud and clear from the mental health experts and advocates that the planned expansion of MAID was dangerous. The current Liberal government has already had to introduce eleventh-hour legislation to delay the expansion of MAID by one year from the date that it had arbitrarily set. We find ourselves, ironically, now in the same position as we were in last year. Bill C-62, once again, would only offer a temporary delay in the expansion of MAID to persons suffering from mental illness. The risks and dangers that exist today would continue to exist in three years. However, the Liberal government is intent on its expansion.

It is truly frightening to see that the Liberal government wants to continue to expand the access to MAID, despite clear concerns about safeguards of vulnerable people. The Liberals' careless approach was already evident when the Liberal government decided not to appeal the Truchon ruling and, instead, introduced legislation that went much further than the ruling had required.

What we have seen repeatedly from the current Liberal government is the willingness to offer MAID to more and more Canadians, without prioritizing supports or treatment. This continues to be the case with those in the end stages of life. Through pain management and psychological, emotional and practical supports, palliative and hospice care provides relief from pain, stress and symptoms of serious illness. Palliative care has proven to improve the quality of life not only for the patient but also for their family. However, access to this is not universal here in Canada.

The government's own report on the state of palliative care in Canada, released this past December, confirms that access to palliative care is indeed not universal. We do not have the necessary safeguards in place to protect vulnerable Canadians when access to MAID is more universal than access to palliative care is. When Canadians suffering from serious illness do not have access to appropriate care, they can be left feeling hopeless. Personal autonomy is not increased when a person feels as though they have no other choice.

When the current Liberal government removed the “reasonably foreseeable death” clause from the MAID framework, it opened up to persons with disabilities who are not close to death. Disability advocates raised alarm bells with this decision, and the news stories that have emerged in recent years have underscored the risks and the danger in that decision. Reports showing that poverty, not pain, is driving Canadians with disabilities to consider assisted death are truly heartbreaking.

For persons with disabilities, the pressures of the cost of living crisis are compounded. Their basic living costs are generally much more significant. As the prices go up on everything, their costs are even greater. It is unacceptable that there are persons with disabilities turning to MAID because of their cost of living situation.

This NDP-Liberal government's inflationary spending and taxes are fuelling the affordability crisis in this country, and what is even more shameful is that, despite the pain and suffering it is causing Canadians, there has been no course correction for this costly coalition. It has continued to mismanage tax dollars. It is intent on quadrupling the carbon tax, which is increasing the cost of just about everything.

Let us not forget that not a single disability payment has gone out to those who want it and have been asking for it. Bill C-22 was sped through the parliamentary process, but those who are desperate for financial assistance are still waiting.

The affordability crisis is continuing to surge across the country, and it is further putting persons with disabilities in a vulnerable position. Medically assisted death should not be more readily available to persons with disabilities than the supports and accommodations they need to live a full, healthy and dignified life.

Repeated reports that Canadians are being offered medically assisted death without first requesting it is also very alarming. It suggests that safeguards have not been put in place to ensure that vulnerable people are not being pressured or coerced into seeking medically assisted death. No person should feel that the health care system, the infrastructure that is meant to provide care and support, sees no value in their lives.

There are serious concerns with the existing MAID framework and the framework's ability to protect the most vulnerable in our communities. These are concerns that are not being addressed by the Liberal government and that ultimately should be the priority of the government on an issue such as medically assisted death. When the risks and concerns that exist with the current framework are already proven to be warranted, we should certainly heed the clear warnings against its expansion.

Experts have said that it is impossible to predict in any legitimate way that mental illness is irremediable. This means that individuals suffering solely from mental illness can recover and can improve. Their mental health state is not destitute nor without hope. If medical assistance in dying is offered to persons suffering solely from mental illness, it is inevitable that vulnerable Canadians will die who could have gotten better.

Experts have also made it clear that it is difficult for clinicians to distinguish between a rational MAID request and one motivated by suicidal thoughts. Persons with mental illness are already disproportionately affected by suicide and suicidal ideation. To extend access to medically assisted death to this group of individuals contradicts and undermines suicide prevention efforts. Every single person's life has value and purpose. It is not acceptable to have government policies in place that devalue the life of a person, and the Liberal government's intention to expand access to MAID fails individuals suffering from mental illness in this country.

Whether it happens in March of this year or in three years, the expansion of MAID will still be dangerous and reckless. The delayed expansion of MAID will ultimately still fail vulnerable Canadians. Bill C-62 does not go far enough to protect those suffering with mental illness. The Prime Minister must immediately and permanently halt the expansion of medical assistance in dying to persons with mental illness. We cannot give up on an individual who is suffering. They deserve support and treatment, not death.

Common-sense Conservatives know that recovery is possible for persons suffering from mental illness. We do not support policies that abandon people when they are in their most vulnerable state. Death is not a treatment for suffering. We will stand with them and their loved ones. Above all else, when we consider medically assisted death, we must be gripped by a resolve to protect the most vulnerable because, in matters of life and death, there is simply no room for error.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, and I realized there was a lot of personal input and a lot of regard for the vulnerable.

Does she not agree, as I had to come to accept that, regardless of my personal feelings, beliefs, values or the choices I would make for myself, and given the safeguards that were put in place with successive legislation, Canadians are deserving of having that choice for themselves?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, in my experience with social work, being in a hospital setting and having the opportunity to be with patients in the most difficult times, such as their end of life, or during palliative and hospice care, as difficult and as hard as those situations are, the opportunity for family reconciliation is amazing. The fact that we would just rob Canadians of allowing their families to reconcile is just a shame.

There are accounts of Canadians being coerced and being offered MAID when there are not proper supports, such as psychiatrists or psychologists, there to help them. It is absolutely unacceptable.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have been debating this bill for several days, or several years, even. Sometimes, I get the impression that people are not seeking out the most up-to-date information so we can have an enlightened debate.

Earlier, I heard some stereotypes, perceptions and impressions that have no place in this debate. I would like to ask if my hon. colleague is aware that this is not about giving or offering medical assistance in dying to someone who is in a state of distress and contemplating suicide. She talked about this a lot in her speech, but this would not happen.

I wonder if she is aware of this and if she has read the report. Has she really done enough research to debate this issue in an intellectually rigorous and consistent manner?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I just want to mention Kathrin Mentler. She is 37 and, as described in an article, she:

lives with chronic depression and suicidality, both of which she says were exacerbated by a traumatic event early this year....

Ms. Mentler says a clinician told her there would be long waits to see a psychiatrist and that the health care system is “broken”. That was followed by a jarring question: “Have you considered MAID?”

I will listen to the Canadians who have been coerced, who have had it suggested to them that their life is devalued and that they are not wanted, and who have been offered MAID. It does happen, and I would suggest all members in the House do their research on all sides of the subject.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I did not realize until the member's speech today that she was a social worker prior to becoming a member of Parliament. I worked in mental health and addictions prior to become a member of Parliament as well.

Can the member share her reflections on what is at the root of this discussion, which is the importance of those most vulnerable in our communities accessing the supports they need and deserve? Can she reflect on the importance of us having the mental health transfers that were promised in the last election, as well as housing and wraparound supports? What are her reflections now that she is in this position as a member of Parliament?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think society is going to a place where we are devaluing people. It is easier for somebody to suggest medical assistance in dying than to actually take the time to help. Sure, we can have a conversation on what the municipal and provincial roles in that are and the wraparound services. However, this comes down to treating humans with dignity and value, and giving them a hand up. It is not suggesting that their life is not really worth it, that everything is broken, and to just book them in at 2:00 p.m. on Friday to end it all. That is disgusting, and society needs to do better.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, before I give my speech on this very important topic, I would like to quickly comment on the horrific incident we faced in southern Manitoba over the weekend with the tragic loss of life of two young women and three children. As a father, it is tough to fathom the loss of a child and the impacts it would have on that family's loved ones and friends. It would impact everyone in their lives and, frankly, the broader community.

My heart goes out to those of Carman and the surrounding area, and to the friends, families and loved ones of the victims of this horrific incident. It is devastating news for a small community like that, where folks know their neighbours and look out for each other, so I pray for strength during a very dark and incredibly difficult time for our community.

To the issue at hand, we are more than a month away from the Liberal government implementing medical assistance in dying for those who suffer from a mental illness. I believe this is heartless, reckless and immoral. Every Canadian has worth, and I, for one, will never give up on those who need help.

Never have I seen a government mismanage an issue as critical as this, and while it may be unpleasant for my Liberal colleagues to hear, I believe they must be held to account. Due to the incredibly serious nature of this issue, there is a lot to be answered for. How could the Prime Minister let this happen and let it get to this point? How could the government be so irresponsible and negligent?

From day one, our Conservative team in Parliament has been sounding the alarm bell, but we were ignored, and we now find ourselves in an emergency. I believe it is ludicrous that it took the outcry of countless medical professionals to get the Liberals to reverse course on this matter. Witness after witness testified to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying about the dangers of pressing ahead with this plan.

Why did the Prime Minister accept the last-minute amendments put forward by the Senate that dramatically changed the legislative framework for MAID? There was no parliamentary study. There was no consultation with experts or affected groups and no evidence that MAID for mental illness could be implemented safely and appropriately. When the Liberals' original bill, Bill C-7, was put before MPs, at no time did it contain any language about creating a pathway for MAID for those with mental illnesses. In fact, it explicitly ruled that out in its entirety.

The original proposed amendment to the Criminal Code specified that “persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness are not eligible for medical assistance in dying”. The then Minister of Justice said, “there is no consensus among experts on whether and how to proceed with MAID on the basis of mental illness alone.” The minister then did a 180° and became a proponent of this disastrous course. Due to his actions, and the Prime Minister's rubber-stamping of the those Senate amendments, we are where we are today.

This is now the second time the Liberals have had to delay the implementation of their reckless legislation. There will never be a consensus from mental health experts that the government should implement MAID for those who are suffering from a mental illness, and if the Liberals will not listen to me, I implore them to listen to their own expert panel on MAID and mental illness, when it said it is implausible to determine whether a mental disorder is incurable.

The panel's report said, “There is limited knowledge about the long-term prognosis for many conditions, and it is difficult, if not impossible, for clinicians to make accurate predictions about the future for an individual patient.” That was echoed by the heads of psychiatry departments of all 17 medical schools, who called on the Liberals to stop this plan from being implemented on March 17.

I completely agree with these experts, but not only should we pause this law from being implemented, we need to permanently end it once and for all. Let me be perfectly clear. Instead of delaying, the government needs to introduce a bill to ensure that it never happens.

When I ran to become a member of Parliament, this was a key plank of my platform. I pledged to do everything I could to stop the Liberals from ever implementing this dangerous idea, and the sad reality is that the Prime Minister—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

May I interrupt the hon. member? There is a lot of noise, and I am not sure if the noise is coming from individuals in the hall outside. I will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to go check that out.

I know people are probably filing in, but it is getting a little loud, and we want to make sure we hear what the hon. member has to contribute.

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I said, the sad reality is that the Prime Minister only wants to delay this implementation. Even the Liberal minister in charge of mental health said last week that her government was not debating if but when this law should proceed. My answer is never. It should under no circumstances proceed.

Instead of being in a position where the Liberals keep introducing legislation to postpone this terrible policy, it will take a new Conservative government to resolve this issue once and for all.

I want to remind all MPs in the House that we could have dealt with this issue not too long ago. My Conservative colleague, the member for Abbotsford, introduced a private member's bill that would have stopped this from ever happening. Almost everything we are discussing today would have been dealt with by that bill. Sure enough, the Prime Minister and almost every Liberal MP voted against it.

As for my colleagues, who seem unconcerned about the expansion of MAID, let me try to persuade them otherwise. There is no reasonable way to establish a legal framework to identify which mental illnesses are incurable. Every person is different and every circumstance is unique. There are variables such as people's economic situation, their support system and where they live that have an impact.

Unfortunately, in rural Canada, access to mental health and addictions services are often abysmal. If people are fortunate enough to live in a community that does have access to mental health services, there is a good chance they will have a lengthy wait time ahead of them. If people make the very difficult decision to seek help and go looking for it, I am embarrassed to say that it can take days, if not weeks, for them to get that help.

It is understandable how people with a mental illness, who have lost all hope, can think this way because they cannot access the treatment and support they need. We all know someone in our lives who has struggled. We also know that this does not define the person. Due to the stigma slowly receding, more and more people are finally seeking the help they need.

The other good news is that mental health research and advances have come a long way in helping treat those with a mental illness. Sometimes it can take years of treatment, even a lifetime's worth, but with the right supports and help, people can regain control of their lives. I am raising this because, in accordance with the law, there is a prerequisite that someone must suffer from a grievous and incurable medical condition to be eligible for MAID.

On the first part, there is no doubt that people suffering from mental illness are in a grievous condition at times. If they cannot get the help they need, it can quickly get out of control. As to the second part, it is no wonder why people think their mental illness is incurable. If they cannot access mental health supports, services and treatments, it must feel like they will never get better.

The Liberals love to talk about compassion, so as I wrap up my comments, let me tell the House the compassionate thing to do.

First, we need to permanently suspend, not delay, MAID for those whose sole underlying condition is mental illness.

Second, we need to better our services for those who are most vulnerable in our society. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has yet to deliver on its campaign promise of implementing a mental health transfer for the provinces. Instead of improving access to mental health services, all people are hearing is that the government is making it easier for them to choose death.

Finally, we need the Liberals to understand that there is a cost-of-living crisis. Far too often, we have seen them ignore the needs of struggling Canadians. There have even been instances of people coming forward to say that they feel MAID is their only choice because they cannot afford to live any more.

In St. Catharines, a man said that he wanted to start the process of applying for MAID, not because he wants to die but because social supports are failing him and he fears he may have no other choice. The CEO of the Mississauga food bank has said that people are coming into her facility asking not for food but for help to end their lives, not because they are sick but because they cannot afford to eat.

I will proudly continue to fight for the most vulnerable in our society and for common sense. Today, that means we are calling for the suspension of MAID for those suffering with mental illness.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, as I did with the previous speaker. I am curious, because there seems to be an introduction of partisan ideology in this discussion, which is not warranted. In fact, it was completely refuted by an earlier Conservative speaker, who I greatly appreciate, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

I will ask my colleague the same question that I have asked others. Regardless of our personal beliefs, values and how much we may not like the idea of medical assistance in dying, can we not accord other Canadians the same rights, the same choices and, indeed, how those choices will help those people have agency in their own lives? Can we not give them that same choice?