Bill C-39

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

This enactment amends An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying) to delay, until March 17, 2024, the repeal of the exclusion from eligibility for receiving medical assistance in dying in circumstances where the sole underlying medical condition identified in support of the request for medical assistance in dying is a mental illness.

Criminal Code

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague for his question. I condemn this practice of spreading disinformation. It leads Canadians to believe things that are simply not true.

I talked in my speech about all the safeguards that are in place to provide MAID to people whose only medical condition is a mental health disorder.

This must be done under controlled conditions, after these individuals have accessed services and after a determination has been made by physicians or nurses. We all know that the process is well regulated and that rules must be followed.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand today to speak on behalf of the constituents of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, a riding I am very proud to represent. If the Speaker will permit me just a bit of latitude, I have not had the opportunity before now to remember former colleague and member of Parliament Ray Boughen.

Ray was a dedicated public servant, but his earliest calling was as an educator. He was a long-time teacher and principal before being elected as mayor of Moose Jaw for two terms, from 1994 to 2000. He went on to serve as a trustee on the Prairie South School Division from 2000 to 2008 before entering federal politics. He served two terms as member of Parliament for Palliser before retiring in 2015.

Ray was instrumental in the early stages of my political career. Under his recommendation, or probably dare, I served as city councillor and later as mayor of Moose Jaw. My heartfelt condolences go out to his wife Sandra, his daughter Patti, his son Ryan, all his family and friends, the students who have been left behind and the people who know him.

Once again we are here debating an issue the Liberals have waited until the last minute to address. They have had years to work on this, and only now, as their polling numbers decline and their deadline approaches, are they finally listening to experts and putting the brakes on allowing medically assisted death for those suffering from mental illness.

This is a government of press releases and talking points. Quite honestly, the government has been forcing the issue without public consultation, and now there is a realization it does not have the support of the public. People have grave questions and concerns, and we are seeing that in almost every article we read in the news.

Instead of opening Pandora's box and seeking proper consultation before introducing policies like MAID, the Liberals have again been forced to backtrack. They have ignored experts, relying instead on their own ideology. This is a government that is out of touch with the everyday Canadian and will do absolutely everything to ignore good policy and common sense.

When experts come along with information that does not align with the Prime Minister's carefully drafted talking points, they are ignored, like the experts from the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada, who in December told the government that Canada was not ready to expand MAID to those suffering from mental illness.

If the government were serious about helping and treating people, it would work to ensure that access to qualified psychiatrists was easier to obtain than offering MAID. The government opened Pandora's box, and now we are seeing the results impacting our veterans community and have heard troubling testimony at my committee.

There are now multiple instances of the Department of Veterans Affairs discussing the topic of medical assistance in death with Canadian veterans. We heard one particularly troubling account of a veteran, who said he was “in a good place”, being told MAID was an option. He was told by a caseworker that they have done it before and they can do it for him. This is unacceptable. This is a conversation that should only be held between a patient and a doctor.

Now it has become so bad that the minister has been forced to refer one case to the RCMP. He now thinks the issue is done with. The truth is that there is a much deeper issue at play here, and many others have come forward since the minister has dismissed this.

Veterans who served our country and who now need their country are being betrayed by the government. Regardless of one's thoughts on MAID, when the law was passed, it was stated that any discussion of it had to be between a patient and a doctor. If the government's own departments cannot grasp this simple fact, how can we trust them to develop guidelines for mental health and the mental health industry?

This is beside the fact that wait times for veterans in Canada to receive treatment are skyrocketing, with many waiting almost a year. It can be even longer if someone is a francophone or a female veteran. Meanwhile, the wait time to obtain MAID is currently just 90 days.

After eight years of the Liberal government, everything is broken. Canadian veterans need help, and veterans needing help are seeing wait times skyrocket, not decline. There are veterans who are homeless and on the streets, and the Liberal government has withheld funding for veterans who are desperately in need.

Veterans took an oath to serve their country. They were ready to die for their country. Veterans with PTSD need help. They are not ready to be systematically eliminated by the government.

I mentioned something earlier about opening Pandora's box. Medical assistance in dying cannot be undone. I grew up in a single-parent home, and my mother suffered from postpartum depression. She had tough days, and there were days when she did not want to leave her bed. As a young child, I witnessed this, but every night has its morning, and there were people there for her. Whether it was family, friends or the local church, people gathered round. They were there to help.

Many people call this hope, and hope comes in different forms. To offer MAID, we take away that hope. Let us not take away hope for people who want help. Let us show compassion and care.

I ask this House, “What is the most valuable commodity in Canada?” Many will say it is minerals, some will say fertile grounds and some will say our abundant and clean energy. I would argue that it is the people of this great country.

The people of this country are the most valuable commodity we have. The potential of our country lies in its people. Let us not devalue a person who is in need of help because they are suffering from mental health issues, suffering from PTSD, suffering from depression or suffering from anxiety. These are the people who need hope.

I am not prepared to give up on people who need our help, because people did not give up on my mother. I am motivated by first-hand experience, and because I have a vested interest in the next generation, this is important to me. When I started out in politics to serve my community, I asked myself these four questions, which I will ask my colleagues here. What kind of kids do we want living in our communities? What kind of community produces that kind of kid? What kind of leadership produces that kind of community? What kind of people provide that leadership?

I believe in hope, and I want to send the right message to the people of Canada: They are valued; they mean something. I also want to send the right message to the next generation, an important message: Times may get tough, but there is hope.

I will be voting in favour of the bill, but I hope the government reconsiders its position on MAID.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate that the hon. member decided to take such a partisan tack in his remarks for something that is as complex, sensitive and deeply personal as medical assistance in dying.

He started by saying the Liberals have waited until the last minute. I guess he is unaware that the Carter decision suspended the implementation of the decision for a period of time while the Conservatives were in power, and they abjectly, repeatedly and continually refused to bring in amendments to the Criminal Code that were called for by the court. An election ended up intervening, and the Liberals were left to deal with that.

The member serves on the veterans affairs committee and indicated that at the veterans affairs committee, we heard that a Veterans Affairs employee said to a veteran that they had done this for someone else and they could do it for that veteran. I can tell members that I am on the Veterans Affairs committee and that is not true. That testimony never came before the committee. That was put to the committee by the Conservatives based on something that was uncorroborated and not presented to the committee. It is most unfortunate.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, what is unfortunate is that we are actually dealing with this in the veterans committee. These are veterans who served our country and were willing to put their lives on the line. These are veterans who served with honour and who care about the fabric of this nation.

Whether they have served in Croatia, like my cousin has, or whether they have served in Afghanistan or in some other theatre of operation, they come back and they find it difficult to integrate into society.

Instead of keeping them out of society, we need to integrate them into society. Being offered MAID as the first option is unacceptable, in my opinion.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where my colleague got the idea that MAID is the first option offered to veterans.

Morally speaking, it is equally unacceptable to exploit veterans for ideological reasons, which is exactly what my colleague is doing.

If people are offering MAID to veterans who are known to have a reversible condition, they should be reported to the police, taken to court, and put in jail, period.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that it is unacceptable. That should not be the first option for a veteran when they are looking for help. We heard the testimony of a serving veteran who contacted Veterans Affairs saying that he wanted some help. He wanted to reach out before he got out of the military and that option was offered to him. That is unacceptable for someone who is serving in the military at this point.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we need to be very careful about language, when I hear my colleague saying that MAID just takes hope away. I had good friends who suffered, who faced death and who had horrific pain. They made a choice, and they died with their loving family around them.

That is one thing, and I respect that. I do not have any right to tell them that they had no choice to do that.

The issue before us is whether we should expand this, with now over 10,000 cases a year undergoing MAID, and include mental illness and depression. I think that is a step way too far. It is irresponsible that this comes at the 11th hour, almost the 12th hour, to be debated in the House.

It goes back to the fundamental failure. We were told, when MAID was brought in, that there would be a review by Parliament to make sure that it was being used in a fair and applicable manner that met what we were all told were going to be the conditions. That does not seem to be the case.

Why are we debating putting this off for another year? We should be voting to say, no, this is not what MAID was intended for. It should not be used in conditions of depression, mental illness, PTSD or any of those other extensions that the unelected and unaccountable Senate thinks it should be.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I agree on a great deal. My disappointment and my first-hand account of what I have seen in Veterans Affairs is disappointing, because the push-back has been from veterans with PTSD who want hope and who want to live.

I appreciate the question that has been brought forward.

[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.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if anyone is politicizing this issue, it is the government. The intention of Conservative Party members is to ensure the safeguards needed to make sure these types of bills do not come through the House of Commons without any regard to the safety and lives of Canadians.

I would ask the hon. member to name at least half a dozen safeguards that he believes would ensure that the dignity, health and safety of Canadians would be well regarded in the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I were to review the other night's, and today's, Hansard, I could very easily identify a half-dozen or more Conservative MPs who stood in their places trying to give the false impression that if someone is depressed, they can actually apply for MAID. How irresponsible is that?

There are many issues the member has raised. In terms of the half-dozen safeguards, we just had a joint committee report tabled today that will provide the answers the member has requested and many more.

I warn that it might go against what the Conservative spin notes say in the back room of the Conservative Party, because it has been very well thought out. It has been supported by a majority of people in the House.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are all dealing with this very difficult issue. At the end of the day, I would hope that we all want to achieve the same goal of providing an alternative for those who are truly at an end point, while making sure we do it in a way that is as safe and respectful as possible.

I would like to hear from my colleague about whether he thinks that the extension of time being requested is going to be sufficient to make sure the proper safeguards are in place so that the general public is not listening to the outrageous kinds of comments that sometimes get sent around with these kinds of issues.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that, by having this legislation pass, we would be putting in place an opportunity to be 100% confident in the law. There is no hesitation on my part.

To add to that, I think it is critical that we understand and appreciate that what we are talking about are people who have been working with psychiatrists for years and for whom there is no remedy to their mental illnesses. It is a small fraction of people who would even qualify to put in applications. Then that process gets under way.

I think it is really important that people understand that. It is not as wide open as many are trying to give the impression of.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary spoke about a mental health portal. While that is an important tool, organizations across the country, including the Canadian Mental Health Association, are calling for more than that. They are calling for the governing party to follow through on its commitment to the Canadian mental health transfer, $4.5 billion of dedicated mental health funding. I am quite concerned that we are in the midst of seeing the governing party walk back from this very important commitment from the 2021 election campaign.

Can the parliamentary secretary comment on whether the governing party continues to be committed to delivering dedicated mental health funds?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada just signed off on an agreement of over $196 billion over the next 10 years. That is there to support the Canada Health Act. Mental health is a part of the Canada Health Act, from my perspective and in the minds of many, because mental health is, in fact, health, just like breaking a leg is a health issue.

I suspect we will have to make sure there is a high sense of accountability to ensure that the provinces treat it accordingly.