Bill C-14 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create exemptions from the offences of culpable homicide, of aiding suicide and of administering a noxious thing, in order to permit medical practitioners and nurse practitioners to provide medical assistance in dying and to permit pharmacists and other persons to assist in the process;
(b) specify the eligibility criteria and the safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person;
(c) require that medical practitioners and nurse practitioners who receive requests for, and pharmacists who dispense substances in connection with the provision of, medical assist­ance in dying provide information for the purpose of permitting the monitoring of medical assistance in dying, and authorize the Minister of Health to make regulations respecting that information; and
(d) create new offences for failing to comply with the safeguards, for forging or destroying documents related to medical assistance in dying, for failing to provide the required information and for contravening the regulations.
This enactment also makes related amendments to other Acts to ensure that recourse to medical assistance in dying does not result in the loss of a pension under the Pension Act or benefits under the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act. It amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that no investigation need be conducted under section 19 of that Act in the case of an inmate who receives medical assistance in dying.
This enactment provides for one or more independent reviews relating to requests by mature minors for medical assistance in dying, to advance requests and to requests where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition.
Lastly, this enactment provides for a parliamentary review of its provisions and of the state of palliative care in Canada to commence at the start of the fifth year following the day on which it receives royal assent.

Criminal Code

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be joining this debate at this late hour. I understand this is an issue that is very close to many people's hearts, and a lot of members wanted to rise. I wanted to make sure I caught your eye on this one.

“The Lord rewards a good deed but maybe not right away.” That is a Yiddish proverb I have often heard. I have heard it in Polish. I love Yiddish proverbs, as many members know. Growing up in my family, my grandmother used to say them. She said them in Polish. It turns out that nearly all of them are Yiddish in their origin. That was something humorous I would talk to her about.

In this case, some members of the public think we have actually voted through things that we have not voted through. All we are doing here, directly in the summary of this legislation, is delaying making a final decision until March 17, 2024, on the repeal of the exclusion from eligibility for receiving medical assistance in dying in circumstances where the sole, the only, underlying medical condition identified in support of the request for medical assistance in dying is a mental illness.

I am prepared to speak on this piece of legislation as I have done in past Parliaments. I have been here since the 42nd Parliament, so I have been through the debate on Bill C-7, and the debate on Bill C-14.

Bill C-7 was originally the response to the Carter decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada. In it, the Supreme Court found that there was a constitutional right to seek an assisted suicide from a medical professional. It is an exemption to a part of the Criminal Code, but do not ask me to quote which section of the Criminal Code. I have, fortunately, not been burdened with a legal education, so I come at this with a layperson's eyes.

It provided an exemption. Sometimes, when I have a back-and-forth with constituents back home, I raise that point. It is an exclusion to that particular section of the Criminal Code. Then, it becomes incumbent on the federal government to put in place some measures to protect the vulnerable in society.

There were a few people who emailed me over the last few months to talk about that vulnerability, people from different sectors of our society, and how they would be affected. This is not a unanimity in my riding, but the vast majority of the people who contacted me are opposed to the extension of medical assistance in dying, or assisted suicide, for people with a mental illness, when it is the sole condition that they have. They have been very clear on this. Some of the emails are quite emotional. Some of them are a dissertation of what has happened to their family, essentially, and they give particular cases.

I want to do them justice by reading some of their thoughts without using their full names, just to protect their anonymity in the emails. I was also here for the debate on Bill C-14. I remember this debate quite vividly, because Bill C-14 came after the Truchon decision. In that decision, the court found that there was a wording we had used, irremediable or unforeseeable deaths. I remember debating in a previous Parliament and saying this would likely be struck down by the court. It was such a broad term that it could mean anything. It went beyond what the Carter decision said. It was struck down by a court. Let that be said to my friends who are lawyers. I am occasionally right on the law and about what the courts would do. They did strike it down in Bill C-14.

Now we are going back again. I understand that, today, the special committee on medical assistance in dying, which was struck by the House, finished its review and tabled the report. I have not yet had the time to completely review that report. To the constituents in my riding who have emailed me over the last few months as this issue has gained more traction, I want to read a part from Allison.

Allison wrote to me, “A family member with complex health conditions said she was asked so many times about it,...” it being medical assistance in dying, “...she wondered if her Dr. would get a commission for the procedure!! Where are the safeguards and regulations? Who protects vulnerable patients from being coerced by subtle suggestions?”

She goes on, “To be human is to experience pain, suffering and vulnerability. In my family, we have had people that have struggled with mental illness and recovered to live productive, healthy lives, thanks to support from family and community.” She is saying, “let us help you live better” should be the message we send people who are suffering from a mental health condition or a mental illness of some sort. I have known people in my life, around me, who have gone through that as well.

Lisa in my riding emailed me in December and said, “As a citizen who is deeply invested in the going ons with MAID and disability services in this country I keep current in what is happening and research.” She started off by saying that she is the mother of a child with a disability. Her son has no siblings and no close family to look out for him and advocate for him. She mentioned that once she and her husband are no longer alive, she is worried what type of country will be left behind for her son.

She uses some pretty harsh language, but it is parliamentary; I checked. She went on to say, “The way in which Canada has expanded MAID is nothing short of predatory, opportunistic and ableist.” Those are the words she uses. She asked some questions, and I do not have easy answers for her, but I will ask them openly here: “Why are they not being offered better mental health and physical health supports? Why is the government expanding MAID without first expanding holistic supports to our disabled people?”

She then says, “As a mother of a vulnerable child who one day will be left alone who may be exceptionally impressionable and dependant on our broken system I am deeply concerned about the expansion of MAID and its possible implications.” She implores us, “Do better Canada!” That was from Lisa in my riding.

Bev in my riding is very concerned about MAID being expanded to adolescents. I know that debate is going on concurrently. It is not directly in Bill C-39, because we are just talking about delaying for a year the approval of mental illnesses and mental health issues as the sole underlying conditions for applying for medical assistance in dying. However, in her email to me, she noted how vehemently opposed she is to MAID being expanded to adolescents or children and to making this expansion permanent in the law. She went on a bit, but some of it is not entirely parliamentary, so I will avoid violating the rules of the House.

Joe in my riding mentions the following: “We have already had someone in the Department of Veterans Affairs advocating Maid for those with PTSD. What terrible advice to give our veterans. Please do not proceed with eliminating those whose only problem is that they are mentally ill.” I have talked to Joe many times. He is what I would call one of my regulars, as he emails me quite often. He is very passionate about public education, I will add.

Cindy in my riding said, “At no point does a healthy family or community decide that one of its dearly beloved members is better dead than alive. The veneer of compassion is easily seen through.” She went on to make a point that really struck me:

It is indeed a slippery slope to offer MAID to the mentally ill, depressed, bipolar, and any other non-detectable illness—especially when removing the requirement that death be considered reasonably soon.

By expanding MAID in this way, the floodgates are opened for Canadians to easily choose despair over meaning in their lives.

This is the wrong direction for Canada, and an embarrassment on the international stage.

The last one I will read is from Shirley, which is very simple. She said, “Has the world gone mad?” She talks about expanding MAID to those who have a mental illness, expanding it to young people, and on and on.

Those are the types of emails I have been receiving, on top of phone calls, and those are the worries I wanted to express on the floor of the House.

Some are suffering and going through difficult times, and some are diagnosed with really serious chronic conditions that are essentially terminal, conditions like Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig's disease. The original foundational decision that Carter was gripped with was what to do about ALS, an awful condition. It is degenerative, chronic and pretty much incurable. There are many therapies out there to delay the condition. There was a member in the 42nd Parliament, an honorary chair occupant for a day, Mauril Bélanger, who passed away from it. Since then, I have met others whose family members have passed away. What I think the judges and the court were trying get at is that these are the people we should be looking after.

I want to lay this before the House. When a doctor gives up on someone, they are much more likely to give up on themselves. I have seen this time and time again. I have also experienced it myself when my disabled daughter was so sick that the four doctors in the room termed the condition “not conducive to life”. There is nothing like being told this by physicians who are supposed to look after a child, and seeing, essentially, the gentle and subtle push that my constituents talked about, which is repeated over and over. There is also the consumption of resources. That will lead to more people using the system when they have other options. Resisting the urge to just give up is difficult to do at the best of times, and people need community and family support all around them.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of my compassionate and caring residents of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. Like the majority of Canadians, my constituents strongly oppose state-sponsored suicide for those living with mental illness. That is why I will support the legislation to delay this from happening. This bill to delay providing assisted suicide is critical. It is a matter of life or death that this expansion be delayed.

Many Canadians are wondering, “How did we get here?” To describe this process as a slippery slope is to understate how greasy this rapid descent has been. How did we go from the Supreme Court reversing a precedent granting the right to die to those with incurable illnesses causing intolerable suffering and whose deaths are reasonably foreseeable to the point where the Quebec College of Physicians and Surgeons is advocating for the killing of newborn babies? How did we get here?

Obviously, first and foremost, the decision by the Supreme Court was to overturn the previous Supreme Court decisions and allow for a limited exception to the Criminal Code. The court found that the prohibition on assisted suicide is intended to protect vulnerable persons from being induced to die by suicide. The court ruled that the total ban on assisted suicide was overly broad because it also applied to non-vulnerable people and prevented them from receiving the assistance of a willing physician. The court said that it was up to Parliament to strike the right balance between Canadians suffering grievous and irremediable illness who want access to physician-assisted dying and those who may be put at risk by its legalization.

Then, Parliament debated legislation and Bill C-14 was passed in 2016. People whose deaths were reasonably foreseeable, meaning they were dying, and who were suffering intolerable pain could seek medical assistance. Despite widespread reservations, many Canadians view medical assistance in dying as compassionate.

Then, one judge said this was a violation of equality rights. The judge ruled that someone whose death was not reasonably foreseeable but who was suffering intolerable pain had the same right to assistance in dying. The progressive government did not appeal the case. It embraced the ruling and brought forth legislation to expand physician-assisted death to people who were not dying.

When that bill was before committee, the justice minister explained why physician-assisted suicide could not be expanded to include people whose sole condition was mental illness. The minister said there was no consensus. The bill then went to the Senate, where suddenly a secret consensus was discovered, unbeknownst to the medical community. The government flipped and flailed, and embraced this expansion to include mental illness.

The minister claimed the government would strike an expert panel to shape the necessary protocols to ensure that only the non-suicidal would be eligible for physician-assisted suicide. Last May, that expert panel returned with a protocol, albeit with two fewer members than when it started, after they resigned in protest. What did the expert panel have to say?

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.

The expert panel, handpicked by the Liberal government, said it was impossible to make accurate predictions about future prognosis. Despite that admission, the Liberals still went ahead with recommending a protocol for allowing physician-assisted suicide for people whose sole condition is mental illness. The government claims it is listening to the experts, yet two of the experts on the panel resigned. They were prevented from providing a dissenting report. They are not the only experts speaking out.

I would encourage all my colleagues to get their hands on the article in the Globe and Mail, published last November, entitled “Canada will allow assisted dying for mental illness starting in March. Has there been enough time to get it right?”, written by Erin Anderssen. The article introduces readers to Dr. Madeline Li, a psychiatrist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. Many of my colleagues here may remember Dr. Li from her appearance before the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. While the article touches on a number of the regressive aspects of expanding assisted suicide, I feel this passage is particularly relevant to our conversation:

But among the many experts who have lined up to express their objections to the direction and pace of Canada’s euthanasia laws, Dr. Li’s deserves particular attention. She led the creation of MAID protocols at the University Health Network, a group of Toronto-area hospitals that together form the largest health research group in the country. At the national association for MAID providers, she is the scientific lead currently developing the government-funded assisted-dying curriculum for doctors. She has administered assisted deaths directly to patients, and provided oversight to hundreds of cases as the MAID program lead at the UHN.

All that experience, she said in an interview, has made her personally opposed to expanding MAID for patients without a foreseeable death, especially those with mental illness. The debate among doctors has become too ideological, she said, and the current system doesn’t have enough safeguards to prevent unconscious bias from factoring into decisions.

Can doctors—a mostly healthy, privileged group of people living in a society that routinely stigmatizes people with disabilities—objectively judge what makes life worth living? Dr. Li says she once watched a doctor use an actuarial chart to calculate that an older woman seeking MAID after a fall had, on average, three years left to live; he approved her for MAID, over the objections of three other physicians. “What if it had been six?” she asked. “How many years is enough?”

Dr. Li worries that since many psychiatrists won’t participate in MAID, there will be “an echo chamber of a few assessors who will all practice in the same way,” leaning hard toward patient autonomy. Already, she argues, MAID assessments are too often focused on whether a patient is eligible for an assisted death, rather than exploring why a patient wants to die in the first place.

The federal expert panel recommended that decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis, with the doctor and patient reaching a shared understanding. But while the law requires that patients must give “serious consideration” to clinically recommended treatments to relieve their suffering, they can refuse those treatments if they don’t deem them “acceptable.”

For instance, Dr. Li described the case of patient in his 30s, who asked for an assisted death, even though multiple doctors said his cancer was curable. Two assessors approved him for MAID. Faced with his adamant refusal to get treatment, and his progressing condition, Dr. Li said she helped him die “against her better judgment.” If MAID didn’t exist as an option, she believes he would have gotten treatment, and still be alive.

The government and its hand-picked experts assure us they can devise protocols rigorous enough to prevent vulnerable people from receiving assisted suicide. The expert panel says that despite it being impossible for doctors to predict a future prognosis of mental illness, Canadians should trust the opinion of doctors in making a determination of intolerable mental suffering, yet Dr. Li, against her better judgment, went ahead with assisting in the death of a man in his 30s who had a treatable cancer.

Unlike cancer, where we can have an objective test to determine a prognosis, we are supposed to just trust the opinion of doctors. Dr. Li was of the opinion the young man's death was not foreseeable. His condition was treatable, yet she assisted in his suicide. She is opposed to expanding this. How reluctant will physicians who support assisted suicide be when assessing people with mental illness?

Finally, while Dr. Li feels the debate has become too ideological, Canadians following the debate in this House might be confused. We have seen social Conservatives, small “L” liberals and socialists all raising serious concerns. We all seem to have the same goal of the maximum amount of compassion and care, while protecting the vulnerable.

I imagine there are about three million Canadians who grow angry hearing the Minister of Justice centre this debate on balancing the protection of vulnerable Canadians while preserving individual autonomy. On this issue, the minister seems to be more concerned with the autonomy of individuals to make their own medical determinations, while less concerned with the impact on vulnerable people.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in regard to what the last speaker said, I believe, whether it is today or the other evening, that the Conservative Party has been politicizing what is very much a personal issue. Are they bringing in vets?

I had the privilege and honour of serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. I marched with World War I and World War II veterans in a parade. After the parade of remembrance, we went to a legion where there were all sorts of discussions. One got an appreciation of the sacrifices that were made and the types of horrors they had to endure.

To use veterans in a manipulative way to try to give the impression that the Liberal government, let alone any member of this House, would support that any civil servant recommend to a veteran that they apply for MAID is absolutely ridiculous and uncalled for. It is a politicization that cannot be justified. If there is a civil servant working for Veterans Affairs, any civil servant, it is something we take very seriously. They should not be communicating with the public, especially not with veterans, knowing what veterans, not exclusively, often have to go through.

The member referenced the idea that the Prime Minister is not listening. I reflect on debates on Bill C-14, which was brought in back in 2016. The member for Charlottetown referenced the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. It obligates the House of Commons and all members of Parliament to deal with medical assistance in dying. There is no choice. We are a nation that operates with respect to the Supreme of Court of Canada, the rule of law, and that obligation for us to deal with it.

Let us look at the debates we had then, in contrast to what we heard the other day in the speech before mine. In 2016, members debated the then-Bill C-14 with a great deal of passion, and people expressed personal opinions in a very real way. I cannot recall the same sort of partisanship. In the debate the other night, the member said the Prime Minister was not listening to what groups were doing and he was forcing this bill through. We have a minority government. The government and the Prime Minister cannot force anything through, unless there is at least a buy-in by a majority of the members who sit in the House. How can the Prime Minister force something through?

What I hear from the other side is that mental health and depression will somehow qualify someone to be able to apply for MAID. That is not the case. Do the members know the difference between a medical illness, where someone works for years with a psychiatrist and is diagnosed as mentally ill, versus someone with a mental health issue?

Just because someone is depressed one day, or individuals might have some mental health issues, does not mean they are mentally ill as prescribed by a psychiatrist who individuals work with over months, if not years.

If someone wakes up today and they are not feeling good, and maybe there has been some depression over the last number of weeks and months, that does not mean they go to the hospital or somewhere and then they are told they can apply for MAID. That is not the way it works.

If one listened to the Conservatives, one would think it is like MAID on-demand, and it is not. Trying to give that false impression is doing a disservice to the debate, because they are not understanding the issue of what is being advocated for.

If someone has a serious depression issue because of a layoff, a marital breakdown or a death in the family, it does not mean they can apply for MAID. If their depression is that severe in a relatively short period of time and they apply for MAID, then they will find other supports they can get in touch with.

I would argue that there is another side of this debate we are not looking at. There are individuals who are wondering about MAID and are thinking about making contact as a direct result of knowing it is there, even though they would not be eligible to apply. We are talking about not months, but years, of working with a psychiatrist, where there is no remedy. After that, it still has to go through another process. We are talking about a very small percentage.

If the Conservatives want to talk about mental health in general, I am game for that. Regarding mental health, let us take a look at the agreement we just signed. It is over $196 billion. That will be millions of dollars going toward issues like mental health.

For the first time, there was a program, the Wellness Together Canada portal, which led to a direct service to Canadians dealing with mental health. It was put in by the Liberal government. Over two million people have been served through that portal. All of them have dealt with some form of mental health issue. Out of those people, there might be zero who would qualify to apply for MAID. It may be a very minuscule percentage, if any, of those who went through that portal. However, we would not think about that if we listened to the Conservative Party.

The Liberal government has raised the issue of mental health virtually from day one. During the pandemic, we put a program in place and we invested millions of dollars to provide support for people who are enduring mental health-related issues.

There is a difference between what we are talking about with MAID and the bigger picture of mental health in Canada. We know that. We have invested in it. We are talking about billions of dollars.

If we reflect on their debates, the Conservatives were even taking extra caution by having the extension. That is why all members in the House are standing up and saying they will vote in favour of it, because it is an extension.

The government is working with stakeholders and other members of the House, not just Liberal MPs, to ensure that we get it right. We have not drawn the same conclusion that the Conservative Party of Canada has. We recognize the issue of mental illness and what is coming from our courts.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, I want to thank the constituents of Niagara West for electing me to represent them in Parliament and be their voice in this place on the key issues of our country. What is more important than the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-39, respecting medical assistance in dying? We all know how sensitive and complex a topic this is. We as parliamentarians, with this bill, are dealing with the issue of literal life and death, which is a deeply personal decision, and that is as complex as it gets.

On both sides of the House, the focus and priority of all of us is to ensure that safeguards are always in place for the most vulnerable people in our society, particularly for those with mental health challenges. I believe that we are all trying to get this legislation right. Lives are at stake, and again, we need to get this right. We also have to keep in mind that we have to be respectful and accepting of the different perspectives on this issue.

Many folks from my community in Niagara West are people of faith, and they are struggling with this concept of doctor-assisted suicide. This issue is of particular importance to the thousands of my constituents who took the time to write letters, send emails and make phone calls to my office to express their views. This is an issue that is exceptionally difficult to accept for many Canadians across the country, including those in my riding of Niagara West.

The planned legal death of someone who is terminally ill is a very delicate matter to begin with, but to open up the door for more people to qualify on mental health grounds, to me and to many of my constituents, is even more troubling. These folks want to ensure that we, as the representatives in this place, safeguard human life in the aftermath of the Carter v. Canada Supreme Court decision.

There is also strong concern that people with mental health issues may be persuaded into ending their lives while they are in a state of personal suffering. That is wrong, and I am sure that we all want to prevent that kind of thing from ever happening to anyone. I am also concerned that there may be horrible stereotypes reinforced, such as that that a life with a mental health challenge is not a life worth living, or that living with it is a fate worse than death. This cannot happen.

I know it has already been discussed, but I would like to provide some information and context for my constituents who are not yet aware of how we got to this point and why we are currently discussing medical assistance in dying in Parliament.

On February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that grievously suffering patients had the right to ask for help in ending their lives. This was the Carter v. Canada decision. In other words, the Supreme Court made medical assistance in dying a legal right for Canadians under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court declared that paragraph 241(1)(b) and section 14 of the Criminal Code, which prohibited assistance in terminating life, infringed upon the charter rights of life, liberty and security of the person for individuals who wanted to access an assisted death. The Supreme Court decision was suspended for a year to give the government time to enact legislation that reconciled the Charter of Rights of individuals and patients. As a result, the government introduced Bill C-14 on April 14, 2016, and it received royal assent on June 17, 2016. Medical assistance in dying has been legal ever since.

An important fact to remember, once again, is that the legalization of assisted death began with the Supreme Court decision in Carter v. Canada. The last time I spoke to this issue, I reiterated my concern, and the concern expressed by thousands of my constituents, that there simply are not sufficient safeguards for those who are most vulnerable in relation to accessing medical assistance in dying. I feel the same today.

I believe my esteemed colleague from Calgary Nose Hill is absolutely correct. This week, she spoke to the same bill and said that she finds it reprehensible and an abdication of responsibility of every parliamentarian of every political stripe to allow medically assisted dying to be extended to Canadians with mental health challenges, given the abject, miserable state of mental health supports in Canada. She spoke about the difficulties in accessing mental health supports across the country, and I believe she is correct. Mental health services are not readily available. They are also very expensive. The availability of quality mental health services must be there across the country before we even start to consider this debate on legislation that allows folks experiencing mental health issues to seek medical assistance in dying.

Let us not forget something very important here: One of the symptoms of a mental health issue is the unfortunate thought of wishing to die. How can we not get our mental health care system in order first before we contemplate allowing folks to commit medically assisted suicide because of a potentially treatable mental health challenge? I cannot fathom a life being lost because of a treatable mental health issue that went untreated because of a lack of quality and available supports.

I am sure my hon. colleagues have also heard the story of an Ontario man who requested MAID, not because he wanted to die, but because he thought it was a preferable alternative to being homeless. Housing is another major issue the government has not adequately addressed. We should not be a country where folks who are homeless should live in such despair that they feel they have no option than to request medical assistance in dying.

In another story, a disabled Ontario woman applied for MAID after seven years of applying for affordable housing in Toronto with no luck. I think we are all in agreement that these types of cases should never happen.

I am also very concerned about the mental health of all Canadians, given the difficult times we are in. Inflation is at a generational high. The cost of groceries is up 11%. Half of Canadians are cutting back on groceries, and 20% of Canadians are skipping meals. The carbon tax is being tripled, adding unnecessary costs to families’ gas, grocery and home heating bills.

The average rent in Canada’s 10 largest cities is more than $2,200 a month, up more than $1,000 a month over the last eight years. Average monthly mortgage costs have more than doubled, now costing Canadians over $3,000 a month. We are seeing a record number of Canadians visiting food banks.

All of this takes a tremendous toll on the mental health of families, seniors and especially those suffering with mental illness and other vulnerable groups. Life was not exactly easy for many people before the pandemic, and it has certainly gotten worse with the inflationary crisis we are in. The important thing to remember here is that investments into mental health services must be made a top priority, because as we all agree, mental health is health.

Let us turn back to Bill C-39. I believe there should be strong safeguards to ensure those most vulnerable never fall through the cracks and end up on a list of people to be medically put to death before they have exhausted all avenues to live a meaningful life.

Let us be clear about something, medical assistance in dying is a tremendously difficult issue to debate. It is a highly emotional topic, and there are many factors and personal convictions that come into play. We agree on many things, but we also disagree strongly on others.

On this issue, specifically, we must respect and listen to one another’s views as we chart the course of our future and the future realities of those who are most vulnerable. We can either signal to them that we care by expanding mental health supports and investing in quality services, or we can unfortunately go down a dark path of allowing those who are struggling with treatable mental health challenges the opportunity to end their lives.

I support investing in our people by providing quality and easily accessible mental health treatments. However, this is not what the government’s Bill C-39 does. It seeks to delay, for one year, the implementation of provisions that would expand the availability of assisted dying to those whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. That is wrong.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government has brought forward this delay to their MAID expansion because they failed to heed the concerns of our Conservative members, mental health advocates and Canadians when they passed legislation in 2021. I personally do not believe that we should ever give up on those experiencing mental illness. According to the most recent polls, a majority of Canadians would agree with me.

A majority of Canadians oppose the government’s plan to offer assisted dying to patients with incurable mental illness. The Angus Reid poll shows 51% of respondents said they oppose the expansion of medical assistance in dying to Canadians whose sole condition is mental illness. In other words, 51% of Canadians believe that we should be focused on offering help and treatment rather that assisted death.

Having said all this, at this point we will be supporting this delay to prevent the immediate expansion of assisted death to those suffering with mental illness. In the near future, we will bring forward alternative proposals. My hope is that the we all uphold the original objective of the initial legislation, which was “to affirm the inherent and equal value of every person’s life and to avoid encouraging negative perceptions of the quality of life of persons who are elderly, ill or disabled.” That we must protect “vulnerable persons...from being induced, in moments of weakness, to end their lives.”

This issue is very important to me and to many of my constituents, and I look forward to working with all my colleagues, from all parties, to get this right.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you.

We talked about vulnerability. Is there anyone more vulnerable than someone who has an incurable illness causing them so much suffering that they have reached their breaking point? That is why I think the government wisely decided not to take the issue to the Supreme Court. People were going on hunger strikes in an attempt to satisfy the reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion because they could no longer take their suffering and desperately wanted access to MAID. That's horrendous.

My fellow members over here are critical of the judge's decision, but it established that the government's position infringed on the individual's right to life because, instead of providing assistance when the person could no longer tolerate their suffering, the system waited for them to commit suicide. The message that sends people is that suicide is their only option. It amounts to telling them to commit suicide because it's not our problem. On top of it all, those individuals had to take their fight all the way to the Supreme Court despite the intolerable suffering they were experiencing because of their illness. I don't think that is a government's role. A government's role is to make sure the conditions are in place so that people can exercise their freedom of choice.

That said, how many MAID bills, other than Bill C‑39, were private members' bills? None. Bills C‑14 and C‑7 came about in response to court decisions, because citizens were forced to defend their rights in court.

My Conservative colleagues say that, had they been in power, Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon would have never had access to MAID, nor would all the others who suffered and were granted access to MAID precisely thanks to Bill C‑7. It's probably worth asking who the most vulnerable members of society are. In my view, the vulnerable ones are those suffering from incurable illnesses who are denied MAID because the right-thinking government knows better than they do what's good for them. For what reason should they be denied that?

Throughout their lives, their right to self-determination is recognized. In biomedical contexts, they are told that no intervention can be provided without their free and informed consent. Then, at the most intimate moment of their lives, meaning death, the Conservatives would have the government make the decision for them because it knows best. It is not the government or their neighbour dying, it is the person themselves. I'm sorry, but I do not agree. I think the passage of Bill C‑7 was a good thing.

However, we need to make sure we are truly ready, because people have mental disorders and are suffering. Implementing this across the country isn't easy. There will be pushback, as there has been in Quebec. Some institutions don't want to provide MAID to people who are terminally ill, even though that criterion is the subject of a countrywide consensus. Patients are prevented from accessing MAID by those institutions. It's scandalous. It's shameful. We have to avoid that.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Bill C‑14 was a terrible bill, a bad copy of the Quebec bill and because of it, people like Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon were forced for a time to plead their case before the courts. These are people who had lived full lives, even if they were in a wheelchair, and who refused to be infantilized and considered as vulnerable people. They had put up with enough discrimination during the lives. They went all the way to the Supreme Court, whereas other people were obliged to stop eating and drinking in order to meet the criteria of a predictable natural death. That is horrible. A state cannot allow that.

That said, Bill C‑7 did rectify the problem and in order to get that bill passed, a compromise was made to include mental disorders. Senators said that the bill, which didn't include people suffering from mental disorders, contravened the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The prudent approach consisted of asking people who know what they are talking about, that is to say professionals and experts in the field of mental health and mental illness. Actually, the experts asked us to stop talking about “mental illness” and use the term “mental disorders”. Moreover, they presented us with 19 recommendations for providing access. I encourage you to read them.

Two years ago, I was one of those people who were sceptical about the inclusion. I read the report 20 times. I asked questions and I think that indeed, the prudent approach would be to pass Bill C‑39. That way, for example, a person who has been suffering from schizophrenia for 30 years and who, at certain times, has become a shell of a human being due to his or her medication, could have access to MAID upon request. However, we're not saying that this would apply to a young person, a minor even, who had tried to commit suicide. The report indicates that it would take decades before such a person would have access to MAID. The person's condition would have to be irreversible and all therapies would have to have been tried.

At some point, we will have to put things into perspective. I will be watching you, Minister, and I will be watching people who are telling us that we are ready. We are not ready right now. You stated that we will be ready to go forward in March. I don't think that will be the case. I don't know who was saying that it will be possible, but it was certainly not the members of the Canadian Association of MAiD, Assessors and Providers, CAMAP, who are putting together seven training modules.

That requires trainers, not assessors. People have to be ready on the ground so as not to make any mistakes. To avoid mistakes, we will have to implement two key recommendations of the report, recommendations 10 and 16. They will become safeguarding measures that go beyond what is being done currently in terms of MAID.

I do not have any more questions, but I am sick of hearing nonsense.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

If I can just interject, I think there's been a pattern here, and that's why it's caused so much consternation among different members of Parliament. You introduced Bill C-7 before the statutory requirement of Bill C-14 had been met. There was a requirement in that bill for a statutory review of the legislation, but Bill C-7 came in.

I was a member of our Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying in the 43rd Parliament and in this Parliament. It didn't get its work under way. It was interrupted by the election in 2021, so I can tell you, Minister, that in working on that committee we always felt under the gun having that sunset clause hanging over us. It was always hanging over us. That was a real issue.

However, I want to change to the expert panel that was convened by your government. The panel, in its report, said:

the existing MAiD eligibility criteria and safeguards buttressed by existing laws, standards, and practices in related areas of healthcare can provide an adequate structure for MAiD MD-SUMC so long as those are interpreted appropriately to take into consideration the specificity of mental disorders.

I want to know about that, because of course, in our existing Criminal Code, in order to meet all the eligibility requirements in section (e), they have to give “informed consent” and only after they have been informed of the means that are available.

I just want to get your interpretation of that, because being informed of something is one thing, but we know from many people who have testified that in many areas of Canada, some of these services just are not available or not available in a sufficient quantity.

Do you think your government might approach a change in the Criminal Code to change that term “informed”, or are you quite satisfied with what the expert panel has provided you?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, when we were looking at Bill C-14 two Parliaments ago, there was a statutory requirement for a review. The government went ahead and introduced Bill C-7 before we ever did that review. It accepted the Senate amendment to its bill before it established the special joint committee, of which I was a member, both in the previous Parliament and in this one. We struggled with many of the issues the member highlighted in his speech. Two of the themes we were grappling with as a committee were respect for individual autonomy versus protection of the vulnerable.

I share the member's concerns with this. How, in his mind, do we try to rectify those two concepts, so that we are respecting a person's autonomy to make decisions that are in their own interest but also making sure that we as a society are protecting the most vulnerable?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a huge thanks to my colleague and dear friend from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his speech. I totally agree with him.

Perhaps he would agree with me that in the debates on Bill C-14, the government promised to do more for palliative care, if I remember correctly. That was a few years ago. I think those promises have been broken.

I would like to hear what my colleague thinks.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member opposite because, for the most part, I concur with what the member is saying. In the debate that took place in regard to Bill C-14, if the member looks at Hansard he will see that the issue of palliative care and hospice care was huge. Members on both sides of the House understood how important it was that we have that in our communities, as we did not want to see people using MAID as an escape because of not having that care.

Again, when I reflect on what we are talking about now, more and more members are talking about the issue of mental illness. It is good that we all have a consensus. No one is talking about depression as being something that would allow someone to apply for MAID. If they do apply, the doctors and medical professionals are not going to authorize something of that nature. We are talking about the extreme situations. That is my understanding.

It is good to hear those independent voices on this particular issue and, as much as possible, I would concur. I would just ask the member to continue to expand upon why it is important that we take the party politics out of it, because it is very much a personal issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, for such a thoughtful speech, one that anticipates much of what I want to say.

We have not done enough in the year since Bill C-7 passed to know with any degree of certainty that we have lived up to our obligations when passing that act to fully study what it would mean to extend medical assistance in dying to those who are dealing with deep suffering that comes from a mental health issue, not from a medical diagnosis of traditional medicines, such as ALS, cancer or the other cases that moved us forward on this trajectory.

I want to briefly canvass what brought us here and the way in which the Parliament of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada have dealt with medical assistance in dying, and I want to suggest, in closing, that when one looks to the Supreme Court of Canada for guidance, I do not believe we can say that the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance takes us to the availability of MAID in cases of deep mental health distress.

Going way back, as the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I want to reflect on one of the champions, heroes or, as one might even say, martyrs on the issue of access to medical assistance in dying. I speak of Sue Rodriguez. She lived in North Saanich, in the electoral district that I am honoured to represent. She had ALS. She famously said, “[W]hose body is this? Who owns my life?” She went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada back in 1993 in an effort to get access to the alleviation of suffering from a disease that would kill her. This was not in doubt. However, the Supreme Court of Canada, in 1993, denied her request.

As others have mentioned in this place over the last couple of days of discussion, a colleague and friend of many of ours and a dear friend of mine, Svend Robinson, stayed with Sue Rodriguez when a doctor assisted her illegally, and she took her own life, with the doctor's assistance, in probably the first public case of medical assistance in dying in Canada.

The courts took a long time to change, and that decision in 1993 was not changed until 2015 in the Carter case. In the Carter case, the Supreme Court of Canada found, taking a different view, that the charter rights in section 7 to life, liberty and security of the person were violated by not allowing a person to make such a decision and to have access to medical assistance in dying. The Carter case changed things by putting squarely to the Parliament of Canada that it had to deal with this.

I will quote from the Carter case. The Supreme Court of Canada said, “competent adults who seek such assistance as a result of a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes enduring and intolerable suffering”. That was the basis for creating legal access to medical assistance in dying.

When Bill C-14 went through, I tried so hard to put forward amendments saying we have to allow advance directives. It was not right not to allow them for someone who knows they are terminally ill and are facing incredible suffering. It is their choice and they should be able to access medical assistance in dying with an advance directive. However, back when Bill C-14 went through, this was rejected. My amendments were rejected in the House as well. Similar amendments were then passed in the Senate, and we all recall it came back here without those amendments having been accepted.

Bill C-7 repaired that but opened the door to something entirely different. I do think it is entirely different to say that when people are suffering incredibly and intolerably due to a deep, chronic and unsolvable mental health condition, they should also have access to medical assistance in dying.

I will go back and say what the political promises were when we started down this road. I first want to address the medical conditions.

When Bill C-14 was first debated, a lot of members in this place were asking about palliative care: Would people choose medical assistance in dying if they had the option for palliative care? We heard many promises from the government benches that we would see increased funding for palliative care. That has not happened. That is one thing that concerns me greatly.

We have also heard, since we passed Bill C-7, that there would be more supports for mental health. That has not happened either.

What would we do if we were serious about making sure that every Canadian could exercise, fully, their rights, under section 7 of the charter, to life, liberty and security of the person?

At least, one would know that the health care system should be working well. I am pleased to see that the premiers accepted the federal offer today. I hope that the federal government will defend our public health care system with every ounce of its energy and make sure that the deals with the provinces are specific and tied to outcomes and results.

However, our health care system is in trouble. I was just talking to an incredible indigenous woman. I will not say her name; it was a private conversation. She is Cree. She lost a dear friend recently because that Cree dear friend could not get access to medical care in time to diagnose and treat her cancer. She leaves two small children behind.

The health care system in the country is not equal, any more than the litany of deeply racist and distressing conditions in which the system works against justice for indigenous peoples. We all know it. In the context of the health care system, how can we not know it?

In terms of mental health care supports, we know even more deeply that the suicide rates among youth in this country are a huge source of concern. We know that mental health issues have been worsened among our youth, through the pandemic, through isolation, through all kinds of things, through being preyed on by social media.

We know that our schools, universities and post-graduate programs are failing young people because they cannot get the mental health supports that they need when they need them. They need help to avoid addictions and to kick addictions. Our young people need so much help and we are failing them.

Opening up MAID is not a solution to solvable mental health care issues where we are just falling down on the job because we are not providing the mental health supports that we have promised over the years.

What would we do if we wanted to be serious about section 7 rights? We would bring in a guaranteed livable income, to ensure that no Canadian is living in poverty, poverty being the number one social determinant of ill health, in terms of physical health and mental health. We would address poverty and end it through guaranteed livable income.

We would do more, as I mentioned, for the end-of-life issues and access to palliative care. There is such a thing as having a good death. We do not like talking about death in our society. We are all supposed to be young and preferably sexy forever. Let us face it: people get old and it is a lovely experience. It is a good thing to be healthy in old age and enjoy it right up to the moment when whatever one thinks is going to happen to oneself happens: meet one's makers or feed the worms, whatever. A good death is a good thing.

Medical assistance in dying does give people that option of a good death, surrounded by family, feeling loved. I am very supportive of the work that we have done in Bill C-14 and half of what we did in Bill C-7, but where are the mental health supports?

Again, to the point that the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay made, I totally agree. I say yes to housing, to supports and to ending poverty.

However, I do think that we have to explore and open up. In the next year, let us get serious at looking at non-traditional therapies for people dealing with what appears to be irremediable depression. Do psychedelics make a difference? I am not going to prescribe. As the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay said, do not take health advice from politicians.

However, the evidence is coming in on using such products as psilocybin to actually trigger something that results not just in a bit less suffering and mental health conditions. There are certainly papers out there that are peer-reviewed and very interesting, that one can cure depression. I certainly would not want to turn my back on a potential cure and then embrace medical assistance in dying for people who could be cured.

Neither do I want to turn my back on people who are suffering and who are saying that we are making them wait another year and asking why we are doing that. These are not easy issues but these issues, life and death issues, are at the heart of the sacred and they are at the heart of our work in Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon member for Timmins—James Bay for such a heartfelt and sincere exploration of how it has made all of us feel in this place. I remember feeling entirely conflicted on the vote on Bill C-7, because I could not see how we could deny advance directives for people who had a terminal diagnosis and were told they had to wait for the day of their MAID procedure, and be of sound mind and confirm.

We knew that people were actually choosing MAID procedures earlier than they needed to because of the failure to have advance directives in Bill, C-14. I know, as I did vote for Bill C-7, that I was approving something to come into place automatically by default that I thought was wrong, so I thank the hon. member.

Has the member ever explored the ideas of things like psilocybin? There are mental health illnesses where the psychiatry profession says there is no hope for a person, they are chronically depressed and nothing will ever lift them out of it. Does the hon member for Timmins—James Bay have any thoughts about what other medical procedures could assist in lifting people out of the deepest of despairs?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to join this debate.

The underlying legislation of Bill C-39 is very simple. The government is simply asking that it be given more time to introduce safeguards, guidelines and professional practices that would allow assisted deaths to be administered in such a way that mistakes are not made. However, we already know that mistakes are being made under the current regime, so that should not give Canadians any confidence. In fact, Bill C-7, which is the bill that has given rise to this request for an extension, is just another case of the Liberal government getting it so wrong by failing to consult in advance and then, after the fact, trying to fix all the mistakes and fill in all the gaps.

This is another story of failure, and what I would like to do is explain a bit of the context. Members may recall that back in 2015 the Supreme Court of Canada, for the first time, opened up the door to legalized assisted suicide, and the Liberal government then responded with Bill C-14, which restricted MAID, or medical assistance in dying, to those who were at the end of their lives and living in intolerable, grievous pain. We were assured this was not a slippery slope that was intended to include other vulnerable Canadians in Canada's assisted death regime. That is what we were told. Many of us did not take the government at its word. We did push back, but the government passed the legislation anyway.

Sure enough, here we are, some eight years down the road, and our fears were confirmed when the Quebec court, in the Truchon case, ruled that limiting MAID to those whose natural death was reasonably foreseeable was unconstitutional. The government did not appeal that case, a seminal case because it is opening up a life-and-death piece of legislation and expanding it without a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. I believe that was an abdication of responsibility in itself. Instead, the government chose to accept the ruling and move forward with Bill C-7, which ended up extending MAID to include, among others, the mentally ill.

I want to be clear here. I do note that the original Bill C-7, which was introduced by the justice minister, did not include the mentally ill in Canada's assisted suicide regime. However, when that piece of legislation, Bill C-7, went to the Senate, the other place, the senators inserted a provision expanding and extending assisted suicide to the mentally ill in Canada. When it came back to this House, the government, instead of pushing back, the way one would expect a government to do, simply rolled over and said it would accept it the way it was, and that is now becoming the law of the land.

Bill C-7 also provided that the mentally ill provisions of Bill C-7 would come into force in two years. That is the sunset clause some people talk about. During that period of time, proper safeguards and practice standards were to be put in place to ensure that mistakes were not made. Not surprisingly, as it is a Liberal government, it got to the end of the two years, and virtually nothing has been done. The government actually struck an expert panel to review this, but it did not give that panel the right to review the merits of the underlying assisted suicide regime in Canada.

There is also a joint parliamentary committee between the Senate and the House that is still reviewing these provisions, and I am looking forward to that report. However, again, the mandate of the committee did not include any real, substantive review and investigation into the substance of medically assisted suicide. All it was allowed to do was tinker around the edges to implement a policy that has life-and-death implications for many Canadians.

Here we are. We have no safeguards and there are no guidelines for our practitioners, but we support the bill because we are trying to push this down the road as far we can. I will mention why in a moment.

The woefully inadequate rollout of the government's MAID regime is a manifestation of a Liberal government that appears to be in disarray and whose ideology is moving Canada from a culture of life to a culture of death rather than providing the necessary resources to our most vulnerable. Many in the House have raised that issue and have asked this: Why is it even necessary to apply assisted suicide to the marginalized in Canada, the vulnerable? They ask because right now we are not providing them with the resources and supports they need to live a satisfying and joy-filled life.

What is really of concern is that numerous stakeholders have said they oppose Bill C-7. By the way, there is no broad consensus in Canada that we move forward with assisted suicide for the mentally ill. There is some consensus for MAID to be in place for other cases where there is extreme pain involved, but Canadians do not support extending it to the mentally ill.

What is also of concern is that the government has now signalled that it will go beyond the mentally ill and would like to include mature minor children in this regime. The government is charging ahead with a life-and-death policy that has increased Canada's momentum down the slippery slope that we had warned of.

Is death now seen as a more cost-effective way of managing the most vulnerable in our society? Many have posited that this is the case now. Canadians have a right to question whether their government can be trusted on issues of life and death. If this is being extended to the mentally ill and to mature minors, what about the indigent? What about the homeless? What about the drug addicted? What about veterans? We know that veterans have already been counselled by the government to consider MAID as an option to serve their needs and provide them with support. We know that people who are arriving at the food banks are asking where they can access MAID, because they do not want to live in poverty anymore. That is a reflection on us as parliamentarians. It is a reflection on our country, and we can do better.

There is, however, some good news, and I will end with it.

I recently tabled a private member's bill in the House, Bill C-314, the mental health protection act. It would reverse the Liberal government's reckless acceptance of the unelected Senate's assisted death amendments. It would arrest the dangerous momentum that the expansion of medically assisted death has triggered on the slippery slope. Under my bill, Canadians whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder would not qualify for MAID. At the same time, the preamble to my bill calls upon the government to finally deliver the mental health supports that have repeatedly been promised in federal budget after federal budget but have never been delivered. This is the least we owe to those who struggle with mental illnesses such as depression.

In closing, to ensure that we do not implement the mental health provisions of Bill C-7 before the House has an opportunity to revisit my piece of legislation, we on this side are very supportive of moving forward and passing the bill expeditiously. It will buy another year and push the whole issue of the mentally ill down the road, and we will make sure that we implement private member's legislation that actually protects the most vulnerable.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, our party has a diversity of views on many aspects of the euthanasia regime in this country. At various stages along the way, there have been Conservatives who have expressed different points of views and voted different ways. My past interventions are well on the record, and I think they have actually been borne out by the experience of this.

When we first debated Bill C-14, I said there was a slippery slope here and the so-called restrictions were not going to work and were not going to remain in place. We have slid quite far down that slippery slope, so I can certainly defend the positions I have taken historically.

I think the diversity of views within our party is often a source of strength, but our caucus is united in saying that this expansion of euthanasia to those with mental health challenges is not acceptable and is not justified. It is something we are united in opposing.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand to give my thoughts on Bill C-39. For those who are watching the debate today, this is the bill to amend the Criminal Code to delay, until March 17 of next year, the repeal of the exclusion from eligibility for receiving medical assistance in dying in circumstances where the sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness.

It has to be stated very clearly, because of the timeline with which we are dealing, that if this bill is not passed, the original sunset clause that was put in place by the old Bill C-7 will come into effect on March 17, which is just over a month away. It is for that reason that I will support the bill and will work with all parties to get the bill passed quickly.

Today's conversation has to happen within the context of the mental health crisis in Canada. We know and have heard, and this is not just from members of Parliament, from many advocates and stakeholders that there is an extreme lack of funding and resources. Clearly, there absolutely must be parity between physical and mental health in funding.

The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has stated in the House that Canadians should have access to timely evidence-based, culturally appropriate and trauma-informed mental health and substance use services to support their well-being. With that I agree wholeheartedly, but words are not enough. We need to see the requisite resources and funding to follow through those words.

We know that beyond the Canada mental health transfer many advocates have long been calling for legislation to enshrine in law parity between mental and physical health. I am very glad today that I am giving my speech beside the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, who is our mental health and addictions critic and who has himself tabled Motion No. 67, which calls on the government to develop that legislation and to urgently fulfill its promise to establish that Canada mental health transfer.

In my own riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, many of my fellow citizens are going through extreme struggles with the opioid crisis. They are dealing with trauma. They are dealing with underlying mental health challenges that are simply not being addressed. That is an extreme gap and the cause of an extreme amount of shame for a country as wealthy as Canada to be still having these conversations about the resources that need to be brought to bear in communities like mine.

I have been a member in the House since 2015, so this is now my third Parliament. I have been here for the entirety of the legislative journey of medical assistance in dying. I can remember Bill C-14 and the sometimes difficult debates we had in the House. That legislation was in response to the Carter decision in the Supreme Court, which basically said that to deny people this right was contrary to our charter. It therefore gave the government a timeline to address it with the appropriate legislation.

What is not often talked about with Bill C-14 is that there was a legislative requirement in that act when it received royal assent. There was a five-year statutory review of medical assistance in dying. Unfortunately, that never occurred before the government went ahead in the previous Parliament and introduced Bill C-7, which established a second track for people whose death was not reasonably foreseeable.

The context of today's speech and C-39 is the fact that we have a story here of the government in several instances putting the cart before the horse. It not only introduced Bill C-7 before a statutory review occurred, which was a requirement of Bill C-14, but it then went ahead and accepted a Senate amendment to the bill that ran contrary to its own charter statement. It did that pretty massive expansion to the law without establishing a special joint committee that was a requirement of Bill C-7.

I am intimately familiar with what this process has been because I have not only been a member of the House since 2015, I have not only participated in debate on Bill C-14 and on Bill C-7, but I have also been a member of the special joint committee, both in the previous Parliament and in this Parliament.

The message all along has been that this kind of a review should have occurred before we were dealing with a timeline crunch. It became quite obvious during the special joint committee that too many Canadians, too many professionals in our country had apprehension about mental disorders as the sole underlying medical condition for being able to access medical assistance in dying as early as next month. Hence, we have Bill C-39.

I want to go back to the original charter statement that the government released as a part of Bill C-7. That includes a number of important statements as to why the government felt, originally, that mental disorders should be excluded from accessing MAID. It did say in that charter statement that the exclusion was not based on the assumption that individuals who suffered from mental illness lacked decision-making capacity. It also said that the exclusion was also not based on a failure to appreciate the severity of the suffering that mental illness could produce. Rather, it was based on the inherent risks and complexity that the availability of MAID would present to those individuals.

First, that charter statement identified that the evidence suggested that screening for decision-making capacity was particularly difficult. It could be subject to a high degree of error. Second, the statement identified that mental illness was generally less predictable than physical illness with respect to the course that the illness may take over time. Finally, it highlighted the experience that a few of the countries that permitted MAID, namely Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, for the sole underlying medical condition of mental illness had and some of the concerns relating to the increasing number of these cases and the wide range of mental illnesses in respect to which MAID could be provided.

Again, it really highlighted the fact that precaution was the necessary mode that was required before we embarked on this path. However, the government in its wisdom decided to accept a late stage Senate amendment to the bill after the House, full of its duly elected members, had given a final vote on Bill C-7. As a member at that time, I could not bring myself to accept that Senate amendment. Therefore, I ended up voting against the final version of Bill C-7 because of that.

It also needs to be said, when we are going over the history, that the special joint committee that was a requirement of Bill C-7 got a very late start. It was first brought into being just before the summer recess in 2021. We only had a few meetings before the summer of 2021 and we had the unnecessary election, launched solely at the request of the Prime Minister, in August of that year. This completely wiped out anything that was happening during the 43rd Parliament. That Parliament ceased to exist, and all of the committees that were a part of it did as well.

The new Parliament, the 44th, reconvened later that year, but it was not until around April or May of 2022 that serious discussions started coming together and we could actually get the special joint committee reformed. Again, we have to put that in the context of the impending deadline of March 17, 2023.

An incredible amount of time was wasted, not only from an unnecessary election but also from the delays of getting that committee up and running. We had to twice request an extension of our mandate from both houses of Parliament because the timelines we had been given were completely unrealistic, not only in hearing from as wide a range as possible of witnesses but also in producing a report that would reflect the gravity of the subject matter with which we were entrusted. That has to be highlighted in the debate today on Bill C-39.

I also think it is important because there have been a few narratives around this legislation. It is important to go back to understand what the Criminal Code actually says, and also to put that in the context of the definition of irremediability.

It is important that, in order to be eligible for medical assistance in dying, a person has to meet all of the following criteria: they have to make sure that they are in fact eligible for health services in the province they reside in, they have to be at least 18 years of age and capable of making decisions with respect to their own health, they have to have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, and they have to have made a voluntary request. All these conditions must be satisfied. A person must also give informed consent to receive medical assistance in dying, after having been informed of the means available to relieve their suffering, including palliative care.

Now we get to the definition of a grievous and irremediable medical condition as outlined in the Criminal Code. A person has to meet the following criteria for that definition: it has to be a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability; they have to be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; and that illness, disease or disability, or that state of decline, has to be causing them enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable.

Those are the definitions in the Criminal Code, so despite the narratives we hear out there, those conditions must be met or the person administering MAID will have committed a crime. They will be in violation of the Criminal Code of Canada and will get the appropriate punishment as a result.

One of the difficulties is the fact that the term “irremediable” is not a medical or scientific term. It is a term that finds its definition within the Criminal Code. If we go to scientific or medical literature, it is a difficult term to define, and that, I think, is why we are seeing a lot of the apprehension around accessing MAID for mental disorders where the sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder.

Some witnesses who appeared before our committee expressed the opinion that this should not be permitted, because there cannot be any certainty with respect to the incurability of a mental disorder. However, other witnesses told us that certainty is not required and that there are ways to consider irremediability, for example by looking at the years of treatment that people have had and whether any responses of the patient have actually been positive.

We also have to understand that the respect for personal autonomy in all of this is paramount, and it is has to be a treatment that is acceptable to the individual receiving it. They not only have to express informed consent, but it has to be something acceptable to them as a person.

I now want to talk a little about the special joint committee, which I have had the honour of being a member of, as I previously mentioned.

I think it is important to underline that our committee has struggled with the question of how to balance individual autonomy with protections for the vulnerable. We were tasked with looking at five themes through the passage of Bill C-7 and the motion that guided our work from both the House of Commons and the Senate: how we institute protections for persons with disabilities; the state of palliative care in Canada; advance requests; mature minors; and, of course, the subject of today, mental disorders as a sole underlying medical condition and their eligibility with respect to applying for medical assistance in dying.

Our final report is due to be tabled in the House this Friday, February 17. We wrapped up our committee meetings last week and finally approved a draft report. That draft report, as I speak, is going to translation services so that it can be ready for tabling here in the House, and so we will be able to meet the deadline that was given to us.

Before we did that work, we had others who did some important work ahead of us. We had the expert panel that was established. They also wrestled with major concerns, such as incurability, irreversibility, capacity and suicidality, and of course the intersection between structural vulnerability, mental disorder and medical assistance in dying.

That panel report, an important precursor to our work as a special joint committee, did state that assessors in medical assistance in dying should be able to establish incurability and irreversibility with reference to treatment attempts made; the impacts of those treatments; and the severity of the illness, disease or disability. The incurability of a mental disorder cannot be established in the absence of extensive attempts at interventions with therapeutic aims.

This means that someone who has not had access to adequate care would not be eligible for MAID. Therefore, MAID could never be used as a substitute for good psychiatric care. I think that is an important thing we have to realize. There will be safeguards in place, not only with the Criminal Code, but also, we hope, with the standards of practice.

For patients who are considering this, we want to make sure that there has been a long track record of attempts to deal with their illnesses. At the same time, we have heard very clearly that there are many Canadians and many professionals who feel that additional time is needed to make sure we get this right.

One of the witnesses before our special joint committee was the chair of the Government of Quebec's Select Committee on the Evolution of the Act respecting end-of-life care. She explained that Quebec had decided that MAID for mental disorders as a sole underlying medical condition should not be permitted at this time because of the challenges of determining irremediability, as well as the lack of social consensus. Another level of government, this time the Province of Quebec, is also underlining the concerns that many members of Parliament are expressing here today.

I mentioned the final report that will be tabled in the House, but our committee did release an interim report. That interim report was specifically on this subject matter. I will read from our conclusion. It states:

We must have standards of practice, clear guidelines, adequate training for practitioners, comprehensive patient assessments and meaningful oversight in place for the case of [medical assistance in dying for mental disorders as the sole underlying medical condition]. This task will require the efforts and collaboration of regulators, professional associations, institutional committees and all levels of governments and these actors need to be engaged and supported in this important work.

Although some work is already underway to implement the recommendations of the Expert panel, there is concern that more remains to be done to ensure that all necessary steps have been taken to be ready by the March 2023 deadline...

Again, in our interim report, our special joint committee was already, at that time, expressing concern with the upcoming deadline, and I think it is a smart move that we are moving ahead with Bill C-39. If we back that up with the testimony we heard at committee, we had a number of different witnesses who clearly expressed that they had troubles with this deadline and that those standards of practice were not yet ready.

It needs to be underlined again that, if Bill C-39 is not passed, the original sunset clause of March 17 will come into effect. My vote for this bill is occurring because of that very fact. This is aside from the broader conversation we need to have about medical assistance in dying in general. It is support for a bill that is going to extend the deadline by one year so we can make sure that we get these standards of practice right, so we have the necessary time to engage with the broader community.