Bill C-7 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) repeal the provision that requires a person’s natural death be reasonably foreseeable in order for them to be eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(b) specify that persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness are not eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(c) create two sets of safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person, the application of which depends on whether the person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable;
(d) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has been found eligible to receive it, whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and who has lost the capacity to consent before medical assistance in dying is provided, on the basis of a prior agreement they entered into with the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner; and
(e) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has lost the capacity to consent to it as a result of the self-administration of a substance that was provided to them under the provisions governing medical assistance in dying in order to cause their own death.

Criminal Code

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Abbotsford for bringing forward Bill C-314, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding medical assistance in dying.

I acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

The bill before us proposes to indefinitely exclude persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder from being eligible to receive medical assistance in dying, or MAID. I will be opposing the bill for reasons I will detail in my remarks. I want to start by providing a brief overview of MAID in Canada.

MAID was legalized in 2016 for persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, through former Bill C-14. Four years later, in 2021, former Bill C-7 expanded eligibility for receiving MAID to persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. Former Bill C-7 also temporarily excluded, until March 2023, eligibility for receiving MAID on the basis of a mental illness alone.

Parliament decided that a temporary exclusion from eligibility for MAID where the sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness was necessary in recognition of the fact that such requests were complex and required additional study. This is why former Bill C-7 also required an independent expert review regarding recommended protocols, guidance and safeguards to apply to such requests. The expert panel on MAID and mental illness was created to undertake this review, and its final report was tabled in Parliament on May 13, 2022.

Former Bill C-7 also required the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee to conduct a comprehensive review of the Criminal Code MAID provisions and other related issues, including MAID and mental illness. The Special Joint Committee on MAID, or AMAD, took this review and tabled its final report in Parliament on February 15, 2023.

Our government extended the temporary exclusion to March 2024 through the enactment and coming into force of former Bill C-39. This was due to concerns about provincial and territorial readiness. It is important that we get this right.

I want to take a moment to point out that the intention has always been for the mental health exclusion to be temporary. This is a complex, sensitive and polarizing issue. Some very legitimate concerns have been raised.

However, I believe that the health care system will be ready for the safe provision of MAID where the sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness by March 2024. Significant progress has been made by our government, in collaboration with the provinces and territories and other stakeholders and experts, to prepare for this deadline.

We are not ignoring the concerns that have been raised. In fact, many of these concerns led to the one-year extension of the exclusion. We are moving in a prudent, measured way with the ultimate goal of ensuring that our MAID framework supports the autonomy of those who are eligible to receive MAID and protects those who may be vulnerable.

I will now turn to Bill C-314 and outline some of the technical issues.

As I stated previously, the bill proposes to indefinitely exclude eligibility for MAID based on a mental disorder alone. It would do this by replacing “mental illness” with “mental disorder” in subsection 241.2(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

There are two main issues with this approach. First, such a change may result in the unintended exclusion of persons with some medical conditions that are not currently excluded from eligibility for MAID. This is because “mental disorder” is a clinically defined term that practitioners have explained would likely capture all mental disorders included in the American Psychiatric Association's “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”, or DSM-5, whereas “mental illness”, as it relates to MAID, is meant to capture mental disorders that are primarily treated within the domain of psychiatry.

“Mental illness” likely captures a smaller set of conditions than what would be captured by “mental disorder”. As such, making the switch in terminology without an accompanying definition may have the unintended consequence of excluding certain medical conditions that are not currently excluded from eligibility for MAID and that do not raise the same concerns as “mental illness” does in relation to MAID.

The second issue is that the term “mental disorder” is already defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code as “a disease of the mind”, and there is extensive case law interpreting what this means in the context of the “not criminally responsible” regime. Therefore, a switch in terminology in the Criminal Code MAID provisions without an accompanying definition may unintentionally complicate legislative interpretation and may also result in the existing case law interpretation of “mental disorder” and the “not criminally responsible” regime context being applied to the MAID context.

Although many experts and practitioners have noted a preference for the term “mental disorder” since it is a clinically defined term, this preference has already been expressed in the context of developing protocols, standards or guidance for MAID. It is important to remember that MAID is not just a health care issue. It is also a criminal law issue, and as I have just explained, things can get complicated in the legislative context given existing definitions and legal interpretations.

Finally, I simply want to point out that Bill C‑314 also restructures the exclusion set out in the Criminal Code but does not seem to change its application.

Currently, in order to be eligible for MAID, a person must have “a grievous and irremediable medical condition”, which is present when a person has a serious and incurable disease or disability, is in an advanced state of irreversible decline and is experiencing enduring and intolerable suffering, as per subsection 241.2(2).

Right now, a mental disorder is not considered an illness, disease or disability under the first part of the definition of a grievous and irremediable medical condition.

As such, a mental illness cannot satisfy the definition and therefore cannot be grounds for a request for MAID.

Under the proposed new exclusion, a mental disorder would not be considered a grievous and irremediable medical condition at all. In other words, it would exclude mental disorders from the whole of the definition, even though some of those aspects may well exist in the case of a mental disorder, namely intolerable suffering and an advanced state of decline. Although this new exclusion would operate slightly differently than the existing exclusion, it seems as though its effects would be the same.

I want to reiterate that Parliament considered this two years ago during its consideration of former Bill C-7 and decided that a MAID mental illness exclusion should be temporary. The point was reinforced by Parliament's enactment of former Bill C-39 this past March.

The expert panel on MAID and mental illness has tabled its final report, which notes that the existing MAID eligibility criteria and safeguards, supported by other key resources, provide an adequate framework for the provision of MAID where the sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. Parliament considered the issues again via the Special Joint Committee on MAID, and the majority of members agreed with the expert panel's findings.

I urge members to join me in opposing the bill and not reverse Parliament's decision by unintentionally complicating legislative interpretation in the criminal law.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

moved that Bill C-314, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-314, the mental health protection act.

In its very essence, this bill is about reaffirming the dignity and worth of each and every human life. It is about recognizing that it is the most vulnerable among us, the disabled and the mentally ill, to whom we owe the greatest duty: to defend and protect their lives and to provide them with every possible opportunity to live life to the fullest.

Medically assisted suicide was legalized in Canada in 2015 by the Supreme Court's Carter decision and later under the Liberal government's Bill C-14. Under this legislation, medical assistance in dying, or MAID, as it is commonly called, was strictly limited to those consenting adults who had an incurable disease that caused enduring, intolerable suffering that could not be alleviated, and where natural death was reasonably foreseeable, which they call the foreseeability test.

At the time, the government and its supportive stakeholders assured Canadians that this was not a slippery slope, where the scope of MAID would continually be expanded to include more and more vulnerable Canadians. However, not surprisingly, in the intervening eight years since the Carter decision, the government has begun to expand Canada's MAID regime to include more and more defenceless Canadians, most particularly those living with disabilities.

In late 2019, a Quebec lower court judge in the Truchon case ruled that the foreseeability test I just mentioned was unconstitutional, requiring Parliament to respond with additional legislation. Sadly, the Liberal government chose not to appeal the Truchon case to the Supreme Court of Canada, presumably because the decision lined up with the Prime Minister's intent to dramatically expand assisted suicide to other vulnerable Canadians. This leaves us with the perverse situation in which the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the country, has never been allowed to opine on whether the reasonable foreseeability test is constitutional.

In any event, the Liberal government responded to Truchon by tabling Bill C-7, which initially eliminated the foreseeability test but expressly excluded mentally ill persons from being caught up in its MAID regime. Here is what the justice minister said at the time:

The fact that there would be risk of ending the life of a person whose symptoms would have improved...is, in part, why we are of the view that it is safest not to permit MAID on the sole basis of mental illness.... There is also ongoing uncertainty and disagreement as to the potential impact on suicide prevention if MAID were made available to this group.

He went on to say:

...there is no consensus among experts on whether and how to proceed with MAID on the basis of mental illness alone. On a question of such importance and with so much uncertainty and expert disagreement, it is incumbent upon us to proceed with caution and prudence.

Those were our justice minister’s views until the unelected Senate suddenly introduced an amendment that expanded MAID to those Canadians whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. Sadly, the justice minister and the government accepted the amendment without protest and, overnight, became zealous proponents of assisted death for the mentally ill. What happened to the caution and prudence the minister was preaching? What about the impact on suicide prevention the minister was so concerned about? What happened to his view that it was safest not to permit MAID on the sole basis of mental illness?

I agree with the Minister of Justice on one thing, which is that, as he has said, this is indeed a complex issue and is deeply personal. It is deeply personal because it involves life, a precious human life.

I would remind the minister and his government that the issue is also profoundly simple; that is, the principle that all life, all human life is precious and worthy of defence and protection, especially for those who do not have the ability to speak for themselves and have no one to speak for them.

One of the primary functions of government is to protect its citizens, to protect life. In fact, the right to life is expressly enshrined in section 7 of our Charter of Rights. Sadly, the government's Bill C-7 fails to protect the lives of our most vulnerable. It removes the critical safeguards that the original euthanasia legislation included in response to the Carter decision. Removing those safeguards will have irreversible consequences for those who suffer from mental illnesses like depression.

What is equally disturbing is that the Liberal government has also signalled its intention to extend the so-called “treatment option” to minor children. That would arguably make Canada the most expansive, most liberal, assisted suicide jurisdiction in the world. Clearly we are on the slippery slope many of us warned about. Canadians have a right to conclude that the Liberal government has gone too far and too fast in its zeal to implement and expand the scope of assisted death.

My bill will reverse this momentum and repeal the government's decision to extend MAID to the mentally ill. It will put a full stop to the expansion of assisted suicide to mentally disordered persons. Let me be clear. My bill does not in any way reverse the rest of Canada’s MAID regime. Assisted death will remain available for those suffering from irremediable, incurable and intolerable illnesses and diseases. My bill is simply focused on reversing the government’s actions in expanding assisted suicide to include the mentally ill. It would arrest Canada’s slide into normalizing assisted death as an alternative treatment option, something so many of us had predicted would happen.

The evidence from mental health experts is very clear. Contrary to what our justice minister is now saying, there is absolutely no consensus in Canada that the mentally ill should be covered by Canada’s medically assisted death regime. In fact, here is what experts and other stakeholders in the mental health community are saying. John Maher, psychiatrist with Canadian Mental Health Association, states that:

Inducement to suicide while simultaneously denying mental health care to two-thirds of Canadians who urgently need it is an unconscionable failing.

Directly undermining suicide prevention efforts is an insidious and ablest perversion of our mental health care duty.

Drs. Ramona Coelho and Catherine Ferrier, co-founders of Physicians Together with Vulnerable Canadian, penned a statement that was endorsed by over 1,000 physicians. This is part of what it said, “Given that there is no medical evidence to reliably predict which patients with a mental illness will not get better, MAID for mental illness will end the lives of patients who would have recovered…Medicine …would fail in its mission if it were to deliberately end the lives of patients living with mental illness… Legislators must work towards safeguarding the lives of the most vulnerable including those placed at a greater disadvantage because of mental illness.”

Dr. Sonu Gaind, chief of the Department of Psychiatry at Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto, stated, “The Ministers have provided false reassurances that we can somehow separate people who are suicidal from those who are seeking psychiatric euthanasia. That is simply not true. In my opinion, that is dangerous misinformation coming from our federal Minister of Justice and our federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions providing a false sense of safety that does not exist.”

Trudo Lemmens, professor and chair in health law at the University of Toronto, said, “I urge Parliament to take very seriously how offering MAID for mental illness deprives disabled persons, particularly those with mental illness, from equal protection against premature death. Persons experiencing mental illness deserve to be protected against premature death by an unreserved focus on ensuring access to all required health care and social support services. Facilitating their death does exactly the opposite.”

Finally, Sephora Tang, psychiatrist and assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry at University of Ottawa, said, “One cannot prevent suicide while at the same time facilitating it. Placing expectations upon mental health professionals to do both undermines the effective delivery of recovery-oriented mental health care. Canadians deserve to live in a country that is committed to safeguarding the right to life and security of every person. Current MAID legislation fails to achieve this overarching social good.”

Even Canada's justice minister has publicly acknowledged the fact that issues such as irremediability, competency and suicidality are not anywhere close to being resolved to justify such a major policy shift in favour of death. Furthermore, medically assisted death flies in the face of the government’s own promotion of suicide prevention programs, including the recent creation of a national 988 suicide hotline.

It cannot be both ways. It cannot claim, as the Liberal government has, that it wants to prevent suicide deaths on the one hand, when it actively promotes assisted suicide for the mentally ill on the other. Over the last eight years, many of us have expressed our concern and expectation that the Carter decision and BillC-14 would be expanded by future court decisions, and that these decisions would leave more and more vulnerable populations exposed to the reach of medically assisted suicide.

Our concerns were pooh-poohed. We were accused of fearmongering and of misrepresenting the intentions of this Liberal government. Yet, today, the Truchon decision and the travesty of Bill C-7 bear out our concerns. That is why more and more disability groups have set the alarm bells ringing and are vehemently opposing this legislation. They argue that this legislation amounts to a deadly form of discrimination, making it easier for persons with disabilities to die than to live.

We are hearing more and more reports of the poor and homeless approaching food banks to ask for assisted death, not because they are suffering from a grievous illness but because they do not want to go hungry and homeless. The headline in the British magazine The Spectator asked last year, “Why is Canada euthanising the poor?”

The response from some bioethicists appears to be, “Well, why not?” In fact, a new paper by two bioethicists at the University of Toronto makes the case that euthanizing the poor should be socially acceptable. That is indicative of the path on which our country finds itself. It is terrifying.

We also have verified reports of veterans suffering from PTSD who are being counselled by the Liberal government to consider medical assistance in dying rather than being provided with the treatment and supports they need to recover.

These are the vulnerable that the Liberal government promised to protect. Canadians have the right to ask whether this government is exercising the requisite caution and care to avoid unnecessary overreach and ensure that MAID is not abused or misapplied.

Let me conclude. My private member's bill, Bill C-314 gives all of us parliamentarians an opportunity to take a deep breath and reconsider the perilous road we have embarked upon. As I mentioned, my bill simply reverses the expansion of Canada’s assisted death laws to the mentally ill. At the very least, I would ask my colleagues to allow my bill, at second reading, to go to committee where there could be more discussion.

Have we gone too far and too fast with Canada's assisted suicide program? Will we evolve into a culture of death as the preferred option for those who suffer from mental illness or will we choose life?

I implore my colleagues to choose life. I wish them much wisdom as they make that choice.

Foreign Interference and Alleged Intimidation of Member

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to the question of privilege raised Tuesday by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills concerning the alleged foreign intimidation.

Before beginning my remarks, I want to make some things very clear. When a foreign government attacks one of us, it attacks all of us. We must remain united against it.

I want to reiterate what my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, said on May 2 in the House to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. We express our solidarity to him and his family and we will continue to work with him and all parliamentarians to make sure he and all parliamentarians get the support they need.

As the Minister of Public Safety has said, since we formed government, we have been vigilant in fighting against foreign interference and ensuring we have in place the people, resources, tools and oversight to defend our institutions, Parliament and Canadians. We will continue to do that work together.

On the specifics of what the member for Wellington—Halton Hills raised, I cannot comment, of course, on an intelligence leak that was the basis of the Globe and Mail's reporting on the alleged allegations by the Chinese government. However, I will raise a few points.

I will use an example of the situation of the question of privilege raised by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent respecting the alleged premature disclosure of Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying from a previous session. The member raised his question of privilege the day after the other members had raised other questions of privilege the day earlier. The Speaker at that time ruled that the member did not raise the question of privilege at the earliest opportunity and, therefore, declined to find a prima facie case due to this fact.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills, in his intervention, stated that he had not raised the matter at the earliest opportunity and stated:

Our authorities refer to the need for questions of privilege to be raised at the earliest opportunity in the House. While the Globe and Mail report was published yesterday morning, this afternoon is the first opportunity I have had to raise this point of privilege. In fact, this afternoon is the first time I have been up in the House since the report was published in The Globe and Mail.

I would like to examine whether, in fact, the member was not able to raise this matter earlier. The day the Globe and Mail story broke, in the morning of May 1, the leader of the Conservative Party was able to ask at least 10 questions in Oral Questions on this matter. During Routine Proceedings on the morning of May 2, the House leader from the Conservative Party requested an emergency debate on the matter respecting foreign intimidation, which had been raised in question period earlier. The leader of the Conservative Party then ostensibly challenged the Speaker on his ruling to not allow the emergency debate to proceed. That afternoon, after the matter was raised repeatedly during question period, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills then finally, at 3:30 p.m., raised his question of privilege.

Given these facts, the statement that the member made that the afternoon of May 2 was the earliest opportunity to raise his question of privilege clearly stretches the limit of credulity. I take all members in this place at their word, but the sequence of events over Monday, May 1, and the morning May 2 raises serious questions about the veracity of the statement that 3:30 p.m. was, indeed, the earliest that this question could have been raised.

Although I cannot refer to the presence or absence of members in the House, I would note that, now that we are in hybrid mode, there is no reason the member could not have raised the matter at the earliest opportunity, which would have been Monday morning, particularly as he stated that this matter is serious and grave.

If a member believes an issue is serious enough to constitute a prima facie case of privilege, he or she has an obligation to raise it at the earliest opportunity. The delay cannot be justified by a member wishing to conduct research to supplant his or her argument with various precedents to support, or to consult legal counsel.

The Speaker has, at his disposal, all relevant procedural precedents and access to procedural authorities to deal with this matter. The precedents are crystal clear. A member must raise the issue at the earliest opportunity. This did not occur in this instance.

The actions that allegedly took place, according to a leaked document as it relates to the member's family abroad, outside of Canada, beyond the jurisdiction of Parliament to deal with.

Finally, since these are uncorroborated statements that were allegedly leaked by a member of Canada's security services, it is impossible for the House to confirm the facts in this instance. As the Globe and Mail story stated, the individual would not disclose their identity so as to not breach the Security of Information Act. Allegations that the House cannot corroborate can never serve as a determinative means to establish a prima facie case of privilege.

Moreover, on Monday, May 1, the Prime Minister asked senior officials to consider the matter immediately.

I therefore conclude that this matter was not raised at the earliest opportunity, and uncorroborated allegations should not be seen as meeting the high threshold for a Speaker to find a prima facie case of privilege.

Before I conclude, I would also like to set the record straight about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills' assertion that the government did not tell him about the Chinese government's alleged actions.

The Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister became aware of the matter following the story that appeared in The Globe and Mail on May 1. On May 2, security officials also briefed the member on all the information that could be provided.

Additionally, the member has received briefings from CSIS on a number of occasions regarding the fact that his work makes him a target of foreign governments. Unfortunately, we live in a time when many foreign governments are targeting democratically elected members of the House. Going forward, we have made it clear to CSIS that, in cases of threats to an MP or their family, regardless of a level of concern, the MP should be briefed quickly and thoroughly.

This is not a partisan issue. We must all work together to defend our institutions, the communities and, most importantly, the parliamentarians who serve on behalf of their communities to protect our democracy.

Criminal Code

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, we do not have a charter statement and we should. It is my understanding that, even when a bill is revised, there should be a charter statement. With Bill C-7, we had an initial charter statement. It came back from the Senate, and there is no new charter statement. The charter statement we are left with is pre-amendment. That is a problem, and if we couple that with the lack of a charter statement in the House, we are left with a huge problem.

In my view, the law is to be followed and there should be a charter statement. We should be following that. I wish we had it. We should have it.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands commended me for my honesty. I appreciate that. I like to think I am always honest in this place.

In 1993, if memory serves, we had the Rodriguez case. I am probably simplifying this, but that was a question on the right to die. It was a five-four split, but the Supreme Court of Canada said that there was no charter basis for that decision. It has been a while since I reviewed that in depth, but that is my recollection.

We fast-forward 22 years to the Carter decision in 2015, which came to the opposite conclusion. That case, I believe, was a per curiam decision for the court, which means that all nine justices found that the prohibition did offend the charter. The question that often comes to the House after that occurs is how Parliament should respond. I was not here then. I got here in 2021. Being here has been 18 of the best months of my life.

I can say that, from 2015 to 2023, we have seen a dramatic shift in what seemed to be envisioned both in the legal community and in the Canadian community at large, that change from medical assistance in dying for people who had irremediability, a terminal condition or a condition that was not going to get better, with death being foreseeable. My understanding when I was growing up, and it was an issue when I was in high school and university, was that this was really at the crux of the issue. Should somebody who is terminally ill have a right to euthanasia? That is how we framed it.

I am going to go to the minister's charter statement, dated October 21, 2020. I am going to note that I am not sure whether or not a charter statement has been provided for Bill C-39. I was with the minister at committee yesterday and no charter statement had been provided, so here we are debating a bill on a very serious issue, and we do not have a charter statement.

I am looking at everybody on the government benches. There are a couple of people here on the opposition benches as well. I hope we can all agree that not having a charter statement, which is supposed to accompany legislation like this, is a problem. What is adding to that problem is that, when the minister was asked about that by one of my colleagues yesterday, there was no definitive answer. He was asked where the charter statement is and when it is coming.

We are being asked to decide on this issue inside of what I would call a legal vacuum, where we do not even know what department officials think about this proposed legislation. I would hope, and I would think, that all of my colleagues believe that to be a problem.

The charter statement on Bill C-7 was tabled on October 21, 2020. This was before the legislation was amended by the Senate. On page 7 of 18, the charter statement says, “While expanding eligibility for MAID to include people whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, the Bill would exclude individuals whose sole medical condition is a mental illness.” On the next page it continues, “In particular, the exclusion would apply only to mental illness”.

Further on, it says:

The exclusion is not based on the assumption that individuals who suffer from mental illness lack decision-making capacity and would not disqualify such individuals from eligibility...if they otherwise meet the requirements, for example, if they have another medical condition that is considered to be a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability. Nor is the exclusion based on a failure to appreciate the severity of the suffering that mental illness can produce.

This is the key part:

Rather, it is based on the inherent risks and complexity that the availability of MAID would present for individuals who suffer solely from mental illness. First, evidence suggests that screening for decision-making capacity is particularly difficult, and subject to a high degree of error.... Second, mental illness is generally less predictable than physical illness in terms of the course the illness will take over time.

These are static points, and by that I mean these things will not change with time. It is not like in 2020 there were inherent risks and complexity of judging MAID for people who suffer from mental illness, but now it has changed. We asked the minister about this, as I recall, yesterday. In any event, the minister has not articulated, and the government has not articulated, what changed. Either the charter statement was wrong, or something changed.

Neither has been put forward before the House. How is that possible? Was the charter statement wrong, or have the inherent risks and complexity changed? Has the predictability of mental illness over the course of time changed, or was the charter statement wrong? These are questions that, in my view, the minister has to answer.

One of the more difficult things we discussed yesterday at committee with the minister happened when one of my hon. colleagues asked him about a letter that was written by 32 academics. These are not insignificant people. I know some of these 32 law professors. The minister was asked flat out by the member for Fundy Royal if the professors were right, or if the minister was right. The minister said he was right.

I am going to list a few of these 32 professors, because the hon. minister has said that they are wrong. There is Archibald Kaiser, professor of law in the department of psychiatry at Dalhousie; Tess Sheldon, from the faculty of law at the University of Windsor; Elizabeth Sheehy; Brandon Trask; Brian Bird, a friend of mine who clerked at the Supreme Court of Canada and did his thesis on conscience rights for a Ph.D. in law; Janine Benedet, who I have heard speak to issues that relate to sexual assault; and one of my very good friends, Dr. Ruby Dhand. I am going to give her a few props here. She had five degrees by her 34th birthday. Professor Dhand is one of the smartest and most brilliant people I know.

The minister told us yesterday that he is right and these people are wrong. They wrote a letter saying that what the government is saying is the case with MAID, that it is rooted in Canadian law, is just simply not accurate. That is what they said. Who is wrong: them or him?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want my constituents to know that I am staying in the riding to take care of my newborn, but I am happy to participate, in hybrid fashion, on their behalf on this very important subject.

Bill C-39, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding medical assistance in dying, seeks to delay the expansion of medically assisted death to individuals whose sole condition is a mental illness. We are here today because of previous legislation in the last Parliament, Bill C-7, that responded to the Truchon decision and the justice minister's interpretation of it by removing critical safeguards to accessing MAID, particularly that death must be reasonably foreseeable. However, Bill C-7 contained an arbitrary deadline of March 17, 2023, to expand MAID to those whose sole condition is a mental illness, and now the government is seeking to delay that arbitrary deadline another year down the road.

As I do not want MAID to be offered to those who are solely suffering from a mental health issue, I will be supporting the bill, but I do so in the context of very big and life-altering concerns regarding the direction the Government of Canada has taken since the debate on MAID commenced in 2016.

The Conservatives believe that we should never give up on those experiencing mental illness and should always be focused on offering help and treatment rather than assisted death. The Conservatives will bring forward alternative proposals to support those with mental illness instead of the government's approach.

Going back to 2016, the preamble of Bill C-14 spoke about the vulnerability of persons. It states:

Whereas vulnerable persons must be protected from being induced, in moments of weakness, to end their lives

It also states:

Whereas suicide is a significant public health issue that can have lasting and harmful effects on individuals, families and communities

Man, have we seen a lot of change in the last seven years.

Conservative members at the time, despite these assurances in Bill C-14, observed that the approach of the government was going down a slippery slope. The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman highlighted a concern that has sadly now become a reality in Canada. He stated, “many believe that the policy will be used prematurely to end the lives of those who have become a burden to their families, society, or the medical system.”

At the time, because of big public concerns, many Liberal members were careful when it came to speaking about expanding MAID in the future. The former justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, said, “In terms of eligibility, the policy choice made by the government was to focus on persons who are in an advanced state of irreversible decline and whose natural deaths have become reasonably foreseeable.” The current member for Lac-Saint-Louis said, “Bill C-14 would not normalize medically assisted dying as perhaps has occurred in Belgium and the Netherlands, the two most often cited examples of the slippery slope.”

In the last Parliament, in his charter considerations on Bill C-7, which expanded MAID to include those without a reasonably foreseeable death, the current Minister of Justice cited inherent risks and complexity as a reason not to expand MAID to those with mental illness as a sole condition. However, the Minister of Justice, unfortunately, as we find today, is speaking on both sides of this issue very irresponsibly. On the one hand, he communicated in the Bill C-7 charter consideration that due to the complexity and inherent risks, we should not be expanding MAID to those with mental illness as a sole condition. On the other hand, in the same bill, he included a sunset clause to expand MAID to these Canadians and said that his hands were tied by a Quebec court decision. However, not only has the government refused to challenge it at the Supreme Court, but leading legal experts in our country have stated that his interpretation of the decision is flawed.

After telling Canadians time and again that the legalization of MAID would not lead to a slippery slope by allowing death on demand for any citizen whenever they may want it, the government seems set on expanding MAID to anyone.

I plead with the backbench members of the Liberal Party to stand up against the justice minister today. You have more influence than any Canadians right now to stop what he is trying to do.

Do not forget that in 2016, on Bill C-14, he voted against the—

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, certainly as the debate has continued through this evening, I think there is a remarkable amount of non-partisan agreement, with areas of difference. I think one of the areas of difference, and I am hoping the hon. member for Foothills will agree, is that it is better not to try to suggest that people have a motivation in this place.

We all agree, I think, that the pace at which MAID extended from irremediable medical conditions to mental health conditions took a lot of us by surprise. I voted for Bill C-7 because I wanted to see the advance directives being made available to people who were suffering with a terminal medical illness. The mental health conditions were suddenly before us.

We welcome the chance to have an additional year's delay, but what could we do in that time? I ask the hon. member for Foothills what he would recommend in this next year to make a difference and have the precautions and protocols in place.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity this evening to speak to Bill C-39.

At the outset, I believe it is important, first of all, that my constituents know that this bill is not a complicated one. It does not propose anything new to Canada’s euthanasia laws, nor does it propose to appeal laws that are currently in place. This is a simple bill that delays the expansion of medical assistance in dying to those living with mental illness by 12 months, one year. On those grounds, Conservatives support its swift passage, but only as a temporary solution.

However, this bill is what happens when a government moves too fast, too aggressively, and fails to take into account the pleas of experts and everyday Canadians living with mental illness and family members living with them. These Canadians include our family members, our friends, our neighbours and our co-workers. They live with mental illness that, to them, should not be a death sentence. They see the provision of MAID for their illness as yet another step along the road to devaluing life in this country. They know it is not going to accomplish anything to end stigma around mental illness, and they know that it puts vulnerable Canadians from all walks of life with illness seen and unseen at risk.

That is why this bill is little comfort to me and to Canadians at large. The extension of assisted death to mental illness must not just be delayed; it must be scrapped completely.

Assisted death has been a highly emotional issue since this place first considered its legalization in 2016. It was the first bill that I debated in this House. Debate has been passionate due to our personal experiences, personal beliefs and convictions on what constitutes dignity in end-of-life decisions. However, today’s debate takes on an even greater heaviness in that respect.

Statistics indicate that one in two Canadians by age 40 has or has had a mental illness. The chances are even greater for young people, and among those who have answered surveys on the topic, respondents report that they would be three times less likely to disclose a mental illness than a physical one, like cancer. The numbers are grim but paint a realistic picture of mental health as it relates to all Canadians. It is universal. No one is immune to life’s difficulties, whether in the short or the long term. That is precisely why stakeholders are asking the government to show true compassion by reconsidering an expansion of MAID to those with wounds that are largely unseen.

The Canadian Mental Health Association points to socio-demographic factors beyond age, education and income levels as driving forces behind a request for MAID. Racism, poverty, homelessness and gender-based violence have harmful effects on mental health and symptoms of mental illness. Over these past couple of years, we can tell too that isolation, persecution for one's beliefs and hopelessness impact our mental health.

The Ontario Hospital Association is clear that these complex issues must be addressed through appropriate legal safeguards, coupled with societal supports, before assisted death expansion is considered. On the other hand, I believe that we must consider the realities of mental health in Canada among certain groups close to my heart and why expansion must never be entertained.

This summer, Canadians were shocked to learn that a Canadian Armed Forces veteran struggling with PTSD and a brain injury was repeatedly advised of MAID as a solution to his suffering by a Veterans Affairs Canada employee. The veteran had never inquired about MAID, but even after asking the VAC employee to stop pressuring him over and over again, the employee persisted. We know that veterans face a greater risk of suicide compared to the average population. It is truly frightening to know that instead of facilitating the most appropriate care available, this public servant chose to repeatedly suggest MAID as a solution to suffering. This frightens me to know, and I wonder how often this kind of advice has led to tragic consequences.

Debbie Lowther of VETS Canada said that it is like planting a seed within someone who is already struggling with their mental health or may even be contemplating suicide. No matter how isolated the Veterans Affairs issue may be purported to be, and I do not believe it is, it is clearly a result of the government’s attempts to muddy the waters on suicide. It did a lot to draw Canadians’ attention to the normalization of assisted death in this country and just how rapidly it is becoming a “fix-all” solution, not just for end-of-life issues but for treatable illnesses among vulnerable people. When accessing an assisted death takes less time than accessing disability benefits for our veterans, we are completely failing them. Sadly, veterans are not alone in this respect.

Some Ontarians, for example, face multi-year wait times for special mental health care. That is years of living with mental health issues when they could be receiving treatment. Why are they not? We need to ask ourselves that question. Disability advocates have been crystal clear with this government for years that Canadians do not have access to all the supports that they need and deserve and are even available.

In a piece in the Hill Times this past week, Spencer van Vloten of BC Disability is correct when he states that, “too much time is spent considering who should die, rather than how to help people live.” He goes on to note all-time highs in wait times, nearly 30 weeks, for those seeking mental health treatment.

To paraphrase one disability rights advocate, those living with treatable illnesses likely would not put MAID anywhere near the top of their list if they had unimpeded access to support and treatment.

Indigenous Canadians also face an increased risk of preventable harm as MAID becomes more accessible. Tyler White, CEO of Siksika Health Services noted that, “Indigenous elders work hard to tell young people that suicide should not be an option, and the medical assistance in dying (MAID) bill [Bill C-7 in this case] says the opposite.”

Many indigenous Canadians can speak to negative experiences with the health care system, including procedures that were done against their will. It is my belief that an assisted death regime, with ever-expanding boundaries and ever-diminishing safeguards, will not help to heal mistrust. It will only worsen it for our indigenous people, our veterans and those with disabilities.

It comes down to this simple fact: The same majority of Canadians who desire empowerment in their end-of-life decisions want Parliament to carefully weigh the risks of MAID for those living with mental health issues, such as depression. Sixty-nine percent fear that depressed individuals could see MAID as a means to escape dealing with the underlying causes of their condition. The experts say they can, over time, deal with those conditions.

The slippery slope does exist, and Canada is spinning out of control. We have to apply the brakes here. We are not only listening to those who will personally be affected by these laws, but we also need to take lessons. I know this government says, “We take no lesson”. Well, do not take them from us then, take them from jurisdictions with a long-standing MAID regime for mental illness.

In Belgium and the Netherlands, MAID laws once limited to mentally competent, terminally ill adults now include adults and children with mental deficiencies, severely disabled individuals, and those with treatable psychiatric conditions such as anorexia and depression. Between 2012 and 2017, the Netherlands alone saw a 600% increase in euthanasia which was sought to address psychiatric conditions; conditions that the experts say cannot be determined to be irremediable.

So, this government has made a choice. This minister has claimed that this is only a pause. It cannot claim as a government that it stands as a champion for mental health treatment while simultaneously cheapening the value of that treatment and, indeed, human life itself.

The minister claims that MAID expansion can be done safely, but experts have been clear that expanding eligibility of medical assistance in dying to Canadians living with mental illness cannot be done safely. It is impossible to determine irremediability in individual cases of mental illness. This expansion will only blur the lines further between suicide assistance and suicide prevention.

Canadians cannot trust this Liberal and NDP government to protect the lives of our most vulnerable, including those who are simply asking for a hand in the seasons of need. Every action they have used for MAID since 2015 has achieved the opposite.

So, let us not further stigmatize those with mental illness by placing euthanasia ahead of other solutions. We need to reject a culture of death on demand and instead let us make Canada a champion for suicide prevention at all stages of life.

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

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concerns. That is why I voted against the Senate amendment to Bill C-7 in the previous Parliament. I have been a member of the special joint committee on medical assistance in dying. It is very clear that Bill C-39 is necessary. We do need to have that delay in place.

The concepts we were struggling with at committee were individual autonomy versus protection of the vulnerable. I would like to get my colleague's thoughts on those concepts. What is his understanding of the capacity of a person who may have a mental disorder to make an informed consent decision and their own internal understanding of what they are going through?

This is a genuine question. I am genuinely curious as to what the member thinks about it because this is a really important debate that our country is having.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening and speak to Bill C-39. This legislation aims to extend medical assistance in dying to those with the single underlying cause of mental illness for one year. If we do not approve of this legislation, it comes into effect on March 17.

I must begin by expressing my disappointment with the timing of the legislation before us today, with mere days before the House of Commons runs out of time to debate and vote on this, in order for it to go to the Senate to also be debated and voted on prior to March 17. This is the date that medical assistance in dying comes into effect for those with the single underlying cause of mental illness.

As it stands, this eleventh-hour legislation will only create a new arbitrary deadline of March 2024, replacing the present deadline of March 2023. There is no basis in science or evidence for this 12-month delay, only the shuffling of government timetables, although I am grateful that it will not take effect next month if all parliamentarians vote for this bill and it goes through the Senate.

This timetable was originally set, at the government's decision, when it accepted an amendment from the Senate to the original medical assistance in dying legislation, Bill C-7.

Despite the Minister of Justice initially expressing his concern at committee that medical assistance in dying could be done safely for those suffering from mental illness, he accepted that expansion upon amendment from the Senate and then shuttered debate on this issue when Bill C-7 returned to the chamber. He now returns to Parliament, trying to undo a problem that he started.

I will be voting in favour of this legislation, not because I think that the government has gotten this right but because if I do not support it, and if most members in the House do not support this legislation, medical assistance in dying would automatically become available to those suffering solely from mental health issues on March 17.

Abandoning people with mental illness to turn to medical assistance in dying instead is heartbreaking. When the Ontario Medical Association surveyed Ontario psychiatrists in 2021, 91% opposed the expansion of MAID for mental illness. Only 2% supported it.

The Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying heard from a range of experts on the topic, clinicians, psychiatrists, and mental health advocates. They all expressed the same concern. Clinically determining that a patient will never be able to recover from a mental health challenge is impossible. It cannot meet end-of-life MAID criteria by any objective standard. Dr. John Maher, a clinical psychologist and medical ethicist, told the committee, “Psychiatrists don't know and can't know who will get better and live decades of good life. Brain diseases are not liver diseases.”

Canadians are rightfully horrified by news reports detailing the increasing prevalence of Canadians seeking MAID for circumstances for which it was never intended. Multiple Canadian military veterans who fought for our country, seeking help from Veterans Affairs, claimed to have been pressured by Veterans Affairs staff to consider medically assisted dying. It was reported that the matter was turned over to the RCMP for investigation and that the Veterans Affairs department was doing an internal review. A food bank manager from Mississauga reported clients asking about assisted suicide not for physical illness reasons.

Despite these stories, the government was undeterred in proceeding with its original March 2023 deadline. Thankfully, Canadians stepped in, phoned, emailed and wrote to every MP in the House. They called for us to think again on this matter and there was pressure put on the government. People were concerned about protecting the most vulnerable, and rightfully so. The legislation before us today is a sign of their efforts.

I was very touched by some of the correspondence from my own residents in Kelowna—Lake Country. I often try to be the voice of my residents in Ottawa.

Judith, in Kelowna, wrote to me with her concerns after hearing about the delay in the planned expansion of MAID for those with mental illness as the single underlying cause. She acknowledged that many people have brought forth many concerns to the government, and she was surprised that the Liberals were now just delaying the expansion.

Not every community has the same mental health services, especially rural areas. I was speaking in person to a young man last week who was movably shaken by the thought of medical assistance in dying being considered to be made available to individuals whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. His deceased mother had struggled with mental illness, and he was extremely angry to hear that the Liberal government had not cancelled outright the option for people to seek MAID under these parameters. Instead, this legislation delays it.

The public outcry and concern about this is really what forced the government to take this first step of MAID delay for people with the single underlying cause of mental illness. There are mental health stories from people I know or have met that I could share in the House, but I am not going to because I would not be able to get through them.

I do not want to give up on people, and the government is giving up on those experiencing mental illness. We must focus on giving people help and hope. We must focus on treatment for mental illness rather than assisted death. Conservatives do not want to give up on people.

As I said earlier, this legislation only creates a new arbitrary deadline. Parliament would be better served in our responsibility to Canadians, particularly vulnerable Canadians who feel lost in their lives, to abandon this reckless expansion of MAID to those with mental illness as the sole underlying condition. We cannot, and should not, give up on persons experiencing mental illness, and we must make it clear and ensure support is there for help and treatment.

Medical assistance in dying cannot be the most accessible solution for individuals with mental illness. Instead of bringing forth changes to expand MAID to persons with mental illness, the Liberals should instead be focusing on proposals to bolster mental health support for Canadians, many of whom are facing challenges in a postpandemic world and the impacts of the last eight years of the Liberal government, which has divided families and neighbours, and of its inflationary policies, which are squeezing peoples livelihoods.

The Liberals have failed to keep their pledge from the snap election in the summer of 2021 for a permanent multi-billion dollar mental health transfer to the provinces and territories, which was to ensure that they have the funding and support needed to expand mental health care. We are in a mental health crisis, yet the Liberal promise appears to have gone to the back of the line.

We have to remember that it was the Conservative member for Cariboo—Prince George who spearheaded a three-digit suicide prevention hotline in Canada, 988. All parliamentarians unanimously supported this motion in the House of Commons. This was over 900 days ago, and it still does not exist.

Now, that is not surprising considering the Liberals gave the task to their catch-all department, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, to implement. What did the Liberals do instead?

They did not bring in legislation to cancel the implementation of MAID for those with the sole underlying condition of mental illness, they just delayed it. Building the mental health support systems Canadians need to live healthy, fulfilling lives will be a top priority for Conservatives in this Parliament and a future Conservative government.

People deserve mental health resources to help them. People deserve hope. Families deserve hope. This is what we will be focused on.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, right before Parliament resumed following the Christmas break, countless Canadians participated in Bell Let's Talk Day. They took the opportunity to talk about mental health, raise awareness, share stories and remind each other that it is good to offer or ask for help whenever it is needed. There are many members of Parliament from all parties who have joined this effort, and it is only fair to assume that they have done so because they sincerely wish to help people.

Every year, after the day comes and goes, it helps us realize that promoting mental health is actually a huge task and it is easier said than done. Over time, there has been some progress with how we approach mental health, but it can sometimes be discouraging to see that we still have to deal with some of the lingering problems or to know how much work there is left for us to do. It puts everything into perspective and shows that the results and decisions we make about an issue are more important than just talking about it.

In that light, Bill C-39, along with the larger issue surrounding it, is a real test for us. It forces us to consider what exactly we mean when we say that we want to promote mental health. Unfortunately, we are looking at a government bill that signals that we are going to take a wrong turn and fail vulnerable people who are suffering with their mental health. In a way, it is good to see Bill C-39 come forward, but it should also be clear that it is not good enough. At the very least, there will be a year before this new change takes effect, but that is nothing but a brief delay of the inevitable instead of reversing a terrible decision.

What is going to happen a year from now? Is the government going to bring another bill like this one forward to delay it another year? Will all the major problems raised by the provinces, professionals, advocacy groups and concerned citizens miraculously get resolved before the year is over? How is that even realistic? Does the government really expect Canadians to believe that?

The timeline is obviously ridiculous. It does not make sense practically and, more importantly, it will not take care of the issue at stake in the first place. There might be different views on assisted suicide for mental illness as the sole condition, but no one on either side of the debate can seriously say that it has been carefully considered in this country, if such a thing were possible. Instead, the whole process has been rushed and incomplete.

If the Liberals truly cared about making the right decision, the new legislation would be quite different. Even on their own terms, they will not be any more ready for the coming change next year than they would be if it was next month. It was only public pressure that made them slow down, but it is not going to stop them entirely. Clearly, they are planning to go ahead with the plan and hoping to get away with it again next spring.

It is highly irresponsible if we take a step back to consider the larger issue. First, I will look at this bill as it has been presented to us. We normally do not have to think too much about the official title of a bill as it comes through Parliament, but in the case of Bill C-39 it does matter, and it might even be fair to say that its name is somewhat misleading. It says that we are amending the Criminal Code related to the medical assistance in dying system, but that is only a technicality. In reality, this bill is not touching the substance of Bill C-7 as it was passed in the last Parliament. All it would do is delay the implementation of Bill C-7 or the aspect of the expansion for one year. That is definitely not a helpful or encouraging response to what Canadians and experts have been telling us since Bill C-7 became law, both inside and outside Parliament.

When Bill C-7 passed in 2021, 91% of Ontario psychiatrists opposed the expansion of euthanasia, but they were ignored. The government has not bothered to listen to critical advice and feedback. Make no mistake, there are ordinary citizens across the country who are horrified when they learn of what is happening here with expanding accessing to MAID for mental illness. I have heard from a lot of people in my own riding who are concerned. They came up to me at hockey rinks. They came up to me at my various town halls that I hosted over the winter break and told me how unimaginable it was for this is to happen in Canada.

There has been the same reaction around the world when people in other countries found out what has happened here in Canada. We stand out compared to other places that offer assisted suicide, and not in a good way. International media coverage shows how Canada's reputation has suffered as a result. It is long past time for the government to get outside of its bubble and hear what Canadians are thinking and feeling. Despite the Minister of Justice trying to claim that our system has strict safeguards, we need to look around and realize that something is not going right.

Canada reported 7,300 deaths in 2020 and 10,000 deaths in 2021. It is interesting that if we compare with another jurisdiction, it gets even more troubling. The state of California started to allow assisted suicide the same year that we did in 2016. The size of its total population is similar to that of Canada, yet it only reported 495 deaths in 2020 and 486 deaths in 2021. The difference in proportion is striking.

People see these numbers and they cannot believe that this government is considering expanding access even further to people with mental illness as a sole condition. They cannot help but wonder if these people are already slipping through the cracks and are caught up in the numbers we have here in Canada.

If we want to understand the background of how we found ourselves in the situation today with Bill C-39, we need to recall what happened with the previous bill. Back then, this Liberal government brought forward a piece of legislation that was a significant expansion from the way MAID was originally set up a few years before. It allowed assisted suicide for conditions where natural death was not reasonably foreseeable.

At the time, we heard overwhelmingly from many advocates, organizations and members from the disability community who were deeply concerned about the government's new direction. They pointed out the flaws and the risks involved for people with disabilities who could find themselves in a vulnerable position, and experience abuse rather than receiving the support and the resources they needed. They also worried about the stigma and the message it could send to the disabled as well as to wider society. It was clear that it would not be unacceptable for anyone, whether they live with a disability or not, to get the impression that these human lives are inferior or not worth living.

Here we are seemingly caught in a similar position once again. It was shocking when the Liberals accepted the last-minute amendment to include mental health as a condition for assisted suicide. Since then, they have had time and opportunity to reconsider, but they refuse to listen and protect the lives of vulnerable Canadians. If government members do not put a stop to the expansion of MAID for mental health, it will be impossible to take them seriously when they try to talk about a mental health crisis.

I want to take a moment to talk about Michael Landsberg, who spoke very passionately about mental health a number of years ago, and I consider this man to be a pioneer and a trailblazer.

Michael Landsberg was the host of Off the Record on TSN. Mr. Landsberg has a foundation called “#SickNotWeak”. A big part of what he talked about 20 years ago, and what he talks about today once again, is the stigma that people with mental illness quite often face and that people with depression face. When we look at the disability community and what we talked about earlier with the stigma around them, we are seeing that happen again for people with mental illness. I think it is important that we look at the stories of people like Michael Landsberg who has spoken so clearly and passionately around making sure that we do not provide harmful stigma for mental illness. When we look at the statistics that I quoted earlier, there is a real and present danger here if we do not address this properly while we have the opportunity.

Across the country there is a lack of mental health support, especially in rural ridings like mine. It is absolutely shameful to offer death as a solution. While Bill C-39 brings a pause in this expansion, it is inappropriate to use it as a selling tactic with the hope that public opinion will shift to their direction in the meantime.

However, a delay is not enough. We need to exclude mental health as an eligible condition for assisted suicide. This government must stop and review what it has done with the system. If not, it only shows that it is untrustworthy. There has been no sign of meaningful reflection about its previous legislation. Because of this, it has failed to reassure Canadians about further changes. We talked about the safeguards earlier; people are wondering if they even exist.

How can we ignore the veterans who are offered MAID instead of mental health support? How can we proceed when we have seen people in poverty and distress offered it against their will? These types of reports are coming far too often, and we cannot say that we had no warning. The predictions of experts and from many of us here on the official opposition have been proven to be correct so far. If this expansion happens in March 2024, how can anyone possibly pretend that these problems cannot get much worse?

Because the Liberals will not do what is necessary, one of my Conservative colleagues has taken the initiative to introduce a bill that will remove eligibility for mental illness. It would give us another chance to prevent this catastrophe, and I hope my colleagues support it.

[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.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my friend from Kitchener Centre that there is obviously a need to invest more heavily in mental health supports.

Looking at how medical assistance in dying has evolved in the last seven years, as well at the way that Bill C-7 brought forward the issue of mental health as a sole underlying condition and where we are at today, can my colleague reflect on whether we are moving at the right pace or moving too fast? I think what I heard from him is a suggestion that we are moving really fast, but we are moving based on the science that is available. In fact, the expert panel report suggested that we are in fact ready to move forward. Could he comment on the available science on this issue?

[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?