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

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-39, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-39, an act to amend an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding medical assistance in dying. This bill would extend the exclusion of eligibility for receiving medical assistance in dying, or MAID, in circumstances where the sole underlying medical condition for MAID is a mental illness. The main objective of this bill is to ensure the safe assessment and provision of MAID in all circumstances where a mental illness forms the basis for a request for MAID.

An extension of the exclusion of MAID eligibility in these circumstances would help ensure health care system readiness by, among other things, allowing more time for the dissemination and uptake of key resources by the medical and nursing communities, including MAID assessors and providers. It would also give the federal government more time to meaningfully consider the report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, or AMAD, which is expected this week.

My remarks today will focus on the legislative history of MAID in this country. I want to be clear that medical assistance in dying is a right, as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

In its 2015 Carter v. Canada decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the sections of the Criminal Code prohibiting physicians from assisting in the consensual death of another person were unconstitutional. In response, in 2016, our government tabled former Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts regarding medical assistance in dying.

The basic purpose of the bill was to give Canadians nearing the end of life who are experiencing intolerable and unbearable suffering the option to obtain medical assistance in dying. The bill was passed two months later, when medical assistance in dying, or MAID, became legal in Canada for people whose natural death was reasonably foreseeable. It included procedural safeguards in order to ensure that the person’s request for medical assistance in dying was free and informed, and to protect the most vulnerable.

In 2019, in Truchon v. the Attorney General of Canada, the Quebec Superior Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to restrict the availability of MAID to individuals whose natural death was reasonably foreseeable. One year later, in response, we introduced a second bill on medical assistance in dying, the former Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding medical assistance in dying.

Former Bill C-7 expanded eligibility to receive MAID to persons whose natural death was not reasonably foreseeable. It did so by creating a separate, more stringent set of procedural safeguards that must be satisfied before MAID can be provided. The government proposed, and Parliament supported, these stringent procedural safeguards in recognition of the increased complexities of making MAID available to people who are not otherwise in an end-of-life scenario.

Some of these additional safeguards include a minimum 90-day period for assessing eligibility, during which careful consideration is given to the nature of the person's suffering and whether there is treatment or alternative means available to relieve that suffering. This safeguard effectively prohibits a practitioner from determining that a person is eligible to receive MAID in fewer than 90 days.

Another additional safeguard is the requirement that one of the practitioners assessing eligibility for MAID has expertise in the underlying condition causing the person's suffering or that they must consult with a practitioner who does. The assessing practitioners must also ensure that the person be informed of the alternative means available to address their suffering, such as counselling services, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care. It is not enough just to discuss treatment alternatives. They must ensure the person has been offered consultations with relevant professionals who provide those services or care. In addition, both practitioners must agree that the person gave serious consideration to treatment options and alternatives.

The former Bill C-7 extended eligibility to medical assistance in dying to people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. However, it temporarily excluded mental illness on its own as a ground for eligibility to MAID. In other words, the bill excluded from eligibility for medical assistance in dying cases where a person's sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. That temporary exclusion from eligibility stems from the recognition that, in those cases, requests for medical assistance in dying were complex and required further review.

In the meantime, the Expert Panel on MAID and Mental Illness conducted an independent review of the protocols, guidance and safeguards recommended in cases where a mental illness is the ground for a request for medical assistance in dying. The expert panel’s final report was tabled in Parliament on May 13, 2022.

The Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying also completed its parliamentary review of the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to medical assistance in dying and their application, as well as other related issues, including mental health. We eagerly look forward to the special joint committee’s final report, expected on Friday, February 17.

I would also like to highlight the excellent work of the expert panel, ably led by Dr. Mona Gupta.

This temporary period of ineligibility was set in law to last two years. It will expire on March 17 unless this legal requirement is amended by law. This bill would do just that, and proposes to extend this period of ineligibility for one year, until March 17, 2024.

As I stated at the outset of my remarks, this extension is needed to ensure the safe assessment and provision of MAID in circumstances where a mental illness forms the sole basis of a request for MAID. It is clear that the assessment and provision of MAID in circumstances where a mental illness is the sole ground for requesting MAID raises particular complexities, including difficulties with assessing whether the mental illness is in fact irremediable and the potential impact of suicidal ideation on such requests.

That is why, when some Canadians, experts and members of the medical community called on the federal government to extend the temporary period of ineligibility to make sure the system was ready, we listened. We listened, we examined the situation carefully and we determined that more time was needed to get this right.

As for the state of readiness of the health care system, I would like to take a moment to highlight the great progress that has been made toward the safe delivery of MAID in those circumstances. For example, standards of practice are being developed for the assessment of complex requests for medical assistance in dying, including requests where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition. Those standards of practice will be adapted or adopted by clinical regulatory bodies and by clinicians in the provinces and territories. These standards are being developed and will be completed in March 2023.

In addition, since October 2021, the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers, or CAMAP, has been developing an accredited study program for health professionals. Once completed, that program will include seven training modules on various topics related to the assessment and delivery of medical assistance in dying, including on how to assess requests for medical assistance in dying, assess capacity and vulnerability, and manage complex and chronic situations. That program should be finalized and ready to be implemented next fall.

This progress was achieved through our government's leadership and collaboration with the health system's partners, such as the provincial and territorial governments, professional health organizations, our government's regulatory agencies, clinicians and organizations such as CAMAP.

The Regulations for the Monitoring of Medical Assistance in Dying, which set out the requirements for the presentation of reports on MAID, came into force in November 2018.

These regulations were recently revised to significantly improve the collection of data and reporting on MAID. More specifically, the regulations now provide for the collection of data on race, indigenous identity and any disability of the person. The revised regulations came into force in January 2023, and the information about activities related to medical assistance in dying in 2023 will be published in 2024 in Health Canada's annual MAID report.

I think we can all agree that substantial progress has been made. However, in my opinion, a little more time is needed to ensure the safe assessment and provision of MAID in all cases where a mental illness is the sole basis for a request for MAID.

I want to be clear that mental illness can cause the same level of suffering that physical illness can cause. We are aware that there are persons who are suffering intolerably as a result of their mental illnesses who were waiting to become eligible to receive MAID in March 2023. We recognize that these persons will be disappointed by an extension of ineligibility, and we sympathize with them. I want to emphasize that I believe this extension is necessary to ensure the safe provision of MAID in all cases where a mental illness forms the basis of the request for MAID. We need this extension to ensure that any changes we make are done in a prudent and measured way.

I want to turn now to the more technical part of Bill C-39 and briefly explain how the bill proposes to extend the mental illness exclusion. As I stated earlier in my remarks, former Bill C-7 expanded MAID eligibility to persons whose natural death was not reasonably foreseeable. It also included a provision that temporarily excluded eligibility in circumstances where a mental illness formed the basis of the request for MAID. Bill C-39 would delay the repeal of the mental illness exclusion. This would mean that the period of ineligibility for receiving MAID, in circumstances where the only medical condition identified in support of the request for MAID is a mental illness, would remain in place for an extra year, until March 17, 2024.

I want to reiterate that we need more time before eligibility is expanded in this matter. We need more time to ensure the readiness of the health care system, and more time to consider meaningfully and to potentially act on AMAD's recommendations. This is why I urge members to swiftly support the passage of this bill. It is imperative that it be enacted before March 17. If it is not, MAID will become lawful automatically in these circumstances. It is essential that this bill receive royal assent so that this does not happen before we are confident that MAID can be provided safely in these circumstances. I trust that all colleagues in this place will want to make that happen.

The safety of Canadians must come first. That is why we are taking the additional time necessary to get this right. Protecting the safety and security of vulnerable people and supporting individual autonomy and freedom of choice are central to Canada's MAID regime. We all know that MAID is a very complex personal issue, so it is not surprising that there is a lot of debate. It should go without saying that seeking MAID is a decision that one does not make lightly. I know from speaking with members of the medical community that they take both their critical role in the process and their professional duties toward patients extremely seriously. I trust that medical professionals have their patients' interests at heart, and this sometimes involves supporting their patients' wishes for a planned, dignified ending that is free of suffering.

Once again, I strongly believe that an extension of the exclusion of MAID eligibility in this circumstance is necessary to ensure the health care system's readiness and to give the government more time to meaningfully consider and to potentially implement the AMAD recommendations. I remind the House that those recommendations are expected just one month before the current mental illness exclusion is set to expire. Therefore, I implore all members to support this bill.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, today we are seeing an admission of a process that was far too rushed. Just two years ago, the Minister of Justice appeared at a justice committee one morning and said that there was not a consensus on how to move forward with expanding medical assistance in dying to those whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. However, later that day, after the Senate had amended the legislation to include mental illness, the minister suddenly said in the House that he was confident there was a consensus. The minister's own charter analysis of Bill C-7 said that those whose underlying condition is mental illness needed to be protected.

Therefore, we see evidence now that 70% of Canadians are opposed to this expansion. We know that many Liberal members are voicing their concerns. Will the minister consider delaying this expansion indefinitely, so that those who are suffering with mental illness, such as our veterans with PTSD, are protected?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on this file.

What is different now, two years later, is that we have done a great deal of work. The expert committee, led by Dr. Mona Gupta, thinks we are ready to move forward with the protocol it has developed, as do a number of professionals and professional bodies across Canada, but there is not unanimity. That is why we are proposing a one-year extension so we, along with medical professionals and Canadians, can internalize what the next step will be.

Let me point out that we all have a duty as parliamentarians to not participate in exaggeration or misinformation. What this bill would not do would be to allow a person suffering from depression or anxiety to immediately get MAID. This is for a small fraction of individuals who are suffering intolerably from long-standing mental disorders under long-standing care of medical professionals and who want another option. That is what this is about. It is not about people who are contemplating suicide.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in a debate as sensitive as this, we would expect every parliamentarian in the House of Commons to lend some dignity to this debate and demonstrate a strong sense of responsibility.

Last week, in the middle of question period, on the topic of mental disorders being the sole underlying medical condition, the official leader of the opposition said to the Prime Minister something to the effect that there were people suffering who were destitute, living in poverty and struggling with depression, and that all this government had to offer them was medical assistance in dying.

I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on these types of comments that, in my opinion, will prevent us from having a calm and productive debate not only from a theoretical perspective, but also with respect to the situation with the bill and what it really covers. In short, we are talking here about misinformation.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and comment.

The criteria for receiving medical assistance in dying in situations where the person is not at the end of life are very strict and rigorous, particularly when it comes to the subject we are considering today and in cases where mental illness is the only factor.

A person cannot automatically get medical assistance in dying just by requesting it. It is much more serious than that. Our practitioners, the medical community and those who provide medical assistance in dying take their responsibilities very seriously.

With regard to the comment made by the leader of the official opposition, I completely agree with my colleague. That shows a rather jaded attitude toward a subject that is very complex and morally difficult for many people. We therefore have to be respectful about it, even in our discussions.

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

Mr. Speaker, like the minister, I have been here since 2015, so I have seen the entire legislative journey of medical assistance in dying, and I have also been the NDP's member on the special joint committee, both in the last Parliament and this one.

Back when Bill C-14 was passed, there was a requirement in that act for a statutory review of the legislation. We did have Bill C-7, and the government did accept the Senate amendment, even though it was contrary to its own charter statement on the matter. It was only after that that we established the special joint committee, which was then delayed by the 2021 election and did not get up and going until May of last year.

In the context of that, I think the Liberals have, in some instances, put the cart before the horse before we have had the appropriate review, but I would also like to hear his comments because there is a crisis in funding for mental health in this country. We have had the Canadian Mental Health Association talk about this. I would like to hear from the justice minister that his government can make a commitment to bring mental health care funding up on par with that of physical care. There is a real crisis, not only in my community, but also in communities from coast to coast to coast. I think that is going to be an important component of this conversation.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on the special committee, and we look forward to the recommendations of the special committee. One of the reasons to have a delay is precisely to take what that special committee might recommend better into account.

Mental illness is an illness, and I strongly support initiatives to better resource the encadrement, the support we are giving to people suffering from mental illness. It is something that our government has recognized.

We put $5 billion into the system a number of years ago. However, when we did that for mental illness, we found that we could not guarantee that the provinces would actually spent that money on mental illness. In the current set of negotiations between the Minister of Health and his counterparts, as well as the Prime Minister and his counterparts, we are trying to build some accountability into that system, but we definitely do agree with the need to invest in greater mental health resources, particularly in this case. We want people to be able to live a dignified life with the supports they need to accomplish that.

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

Mr. Speaker, some have opined that the extension sought today is potentially for re-debating the issue of mental health as a sole and underlying condition for MAID. I am wondering if the minister could outline why that is not the case.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we passed the law in 2019. Part of the parliamentary process was the interactions between the House and the Senate. We came to a compromise at the end of that process with the Senate to include mental illness as a sole criterion with a two-year delay.

We felt at the time that this could be done in two years. COVID intervened and an election intervened, but we do feel that a great deal of work has been done, in particular, by the expert committee. However, in order for everyone to internalize those recommendations, and for faculties of medicine, provincial and territorial bodies, and expert groups to build out the didactic materials, we need another year, but this is only a year extension. Of course, this would also give us time to look at what the special committee reports on this particular area, as well as evaluate other suggestions it makes.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I wish to recognize the life of Danilo Covaceuszach. I just saw his obituary in the Kamloops This Week. May eternal light shine upon him.

In reference to that last answer from the Minister of Justice, it really is incumbent, in my view, that the Minister of Justice listen to the people of Canada, and people in my riding have been asking that the minister reconsider this. His answer to the parliamentary secretary says to me that he is not prepared to do so. This is amidst the charter statement from his own department saying that this has inherent risks and complexity. Given that, is he saying unequivocally before the House that there is not going to be any reconsideration of this before the next year?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work as a critic and his work on committee.

We are in a far different place than we were two years ago. We have now done a great deal of the work, particularly at the federal level, on mental illness as the sole criterion for seeking MAID. As I said, a number of leading experts feel that we would have been ready next month to have moved forward. We are trying to be prudent and to allow others to internalize the learning that has been developed over the last two years.

I mentioned before, and I will repeat it again, that this is a small fraction of people who are in the non-end-of-life scenario. Indeed, the people in the non-end-of-life scenario generally are a small fraction of those who seek MAID. It is not the case that somebody will simply be able to get MAID by going to their doctor and saying that they are contemplating suicide. That is not the case, and we are misleading Canadians if that is what we say.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-39, a legislation that imposes a new arbitrary deadline of March 2024 in place of the Liberal government's arbitrary deadline of March 2023 whereby persons with a sole underlying mental health disorder would be eligible for MAID.

I support Bill C-39 only because it is better than the alternative, namely that in one short month from now, on March 17, MAID would be available to persons with a sole underlying mental health disorder. This would be an absolute disaster and certainly result in vulnerable persons prematurely ending their lives, when otherwise, they could have gone on to recover and lead healthy and happy lives.

Rather than imposing a new arbitrary deadline that is not grounded on science and evidence, what the Liberal government should be doing is abandoning this radical, reckless and dangerous expansion of MAID altogether. This is why I wholeheartedly support Bill C-314, which was introduced last Friday by my friend and colleague, the member for Abbotsford, and would do exactly that.

One would expect that before deciding to expand MAID in cases of mental illness, a responsible government would take the time to study the issue thoroughly and consult widely with experts. After all, we are talking about life and death. We are talking about a significant expansion that would impact a vulnerable group of Canadians.

However, the Liberal government is not responsible, and that is not what happened. This is why the government finds itself in the mess it is in today with this rushed, 11th-hour legislation to delay the expansion.

Instead, the Minister of Justice accepted a radical Senate amendment to Bill C-7, which established an arbitrary sunset clause. That set in motion this expansion of MAID in cases of mental illness, effective in March of 2023. To provide some context, Bill C-7 was a response to the Truchon decision; its purpose was to remove a critical safeguard, namely that death be reasonably foreseeable before someone is eligible for MAID. It was a terrible piece of legislation that the government should have appealed but did not.

As bad as the bill was, when it was studied at the justice committee, of which I was a member at the time, nowhere in the bill was there any mention of expanding MAID in cases of mental illness. The justice committee did not hear evidence on that point. Indeed, when the minister came to committee, he said that there were inherent risks and complexities with expanding MAID in cases of mental illness, and therefore, it would be inappropriate to do so.

The bill went over to the Senate, and all of a sudden, the minister unilaterally accepted the amendment. Then what did the Liberals do? After little more than a day of debate, they shut down debate on a bill that had drastically changed in scope and rammed through the legislation for this expansion of MAID in cases of mental illness.

There was no meaningful study and absolutely no consultation with experts, including psychiatrists; persons struggling with mental illness; or these person's advocates. There was nothing. In short, the justice minister made the decision to go ahead with this significant expansion and then said the issue would be studied later. Hence, there was the establishment of an expert panel that was appointed after the government had already made the decision to go ahead. One would think that if an expert panel were going to be appointed, it would be appointed before deciding. However, that is not what happened with the justice minister and Liberal government.

We saw a special joint committee established after the fact. Talk about getting it backward, putting blind ideology and hubris ahead of science and evidence, and showing a total disregard for the concerns and lives of Canadians struggling with mental illness. Had the Minister of Justice and the Liberal government done their homework at the outset, they would have learned very quickly that this expansion of MAID cannot be implemented safely.

I serve as a co-vice-chair on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. As early as the spring, the committee heard from multiple witnesses, including representatives of the mental health community, and most importantly with respect to some of the clinical issues, leading psychiatrists. The body of evidence showing that this cannot proceed safely was overwhelming. One of the key reasons cited for this was that in the case of mental illness, it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict irremediability. In other words, in the case of mental illness, it is difficult or impossible to determine whether someone can recover and become healthy. This is a serious problem.

Let us look at some of the evidence that was available to the minister in the spring. Dr. John Maher, a clinical psychiatrist and medical ethicist who appeared before the committee, said, “Psychiatrists don't know and can't know who will get better and live decades of good life. Brain diseases are not liver diseases.”

Dr. Brian Mishara, a clinical psychiatrist and professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal, told the committee, “I'm a scientist. The latest Cochrane Review of research on the ability to find some indicator of the future course of a mental illness, either treated or untreated, concluded that we have no specific scientific ways of doing this.”

Even the government's expert panel conceded the difficulty in predicting irremediability. At page 9 of the expert panel report, the panel observed, “The evolution of many mental disorders, like some other chronic conditions, is difficult to predict for a given individual. There is limited knowledge about the long-term prognosis for many conditions, and it is difficult, if not impossible, for clinicians to make accurate predictions about the future for an individual patient.” The government's own expert panel said that it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict irremediability.

If one cannot predict irremediability, persons who could go on to lead healthy and happy lives may have their lives prematurely ended. This is a problem that the government cannot avoid and that has not been resolved. Let me remind this House that, under the law, one must have an irremediable condition in order to be eligible for MAID. However, here we have leading experts and psychiatrists, including the government's expert panel, saying that it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict irremediability.

According to the psychiatrists who appeared before the special joint committee, what that means is that medical assessments in cases of mental illness for MAID are going to be decided on the basis of “hunches and guesswork that could be wildly inaccurate.” Those are the words of Dr. Mark Sinyor, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, who appeared before the special joint committee. These words were echoed by other psychiatrists who appeared before our committee.

The expert panel did not use such language, but it essentially conceded the point in its report because it was unable to come up with any objective standard by which to measure whether a patient's condition in the case of mental illness is irremediable. Instead, the expert panel ridiculously and recklessly said that it was going to wash its hands clean of this and that it was going to give a big green light and say it can all be done on a case-by-case basis. There would be no objective standard whatsoever; all would be guesswork and subjective assessment.

At the special joint committee on the issue of predicting irremediability in the context of mental illness, Dr. Mark Sinyor said that physicians undertaking a patient assessment “could be making an error 2% of the time or 95% of the time.” A 95% error rate is the risk on a matter of life and death, on a procedure that is irreversible and results in the termination of someone's life. For persons who are struggling with mental illness, this is the government's solution. The minister just stood in this place and said, “Damn the evidence. Damn the facts. We are going full steam ahead”.

I cannot think of a more reckless approach than the one the Liberal government has taken on an issue of profound importance to so many Canadians. It is not just the issue of irremediability, although given that this cannot be resolved, it should be the end of the matter. In addition, psychiatrists and other experts at the special joint committee emphasized that in the case of mental illness, it is very difficult to distinguish between a request motivated by suicidality versus one made rationally. In fact, suicidality is a symptom of mental illness, and indeed, 90% of persons who end their lives by suicide have a diagnosable mental disorder.

To illustrate how radical the government is, I note that when the Ontario Medical Association surveyed Ontario psychiatrists in 2021, 91% said they opposed the expansion of MAID for mental illness under Bill C-7. About 2% expressed support. Some 91% were against, 2% were in support and the reset were undecided. This speaks to how reckless, how radical, how extreme and how out of touch the government is on the question of expanding MAID in the case of mental illness.

In the face of the overwhelming evidence that we heard at committee, we issued an interim dissenting report calling on the Liberals to put a halt to this radical and reckless expansion. The minister ignored our interim dissenting report. He ignored the experts. He ignored the evidence. It appears he is so blinded by ideology that it is impossible for him to see what is in plain sight: This cannot be done safely.

In December, when it was evident that the minister was not listening, the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada, which includes the heads of psychiatry at all 17 medical schools, said to put a halt to this expansion. However, the minister still was not prepared to act. Indeed, it was not until the day after Parliament rose for Christmas that he had a late afternoon press conference where he made some vague commitment to introducing legislation in which there would be some type of extension. Then, with only 17 sitting days left before the expiration of the sunset clause, the minister finally saw fit to introduce this bill. I think this very clearly illustrates the shambolic approach with which the government has handled this issue.

We now have legislation, but what does this legislation do? As I noted at the outset of my speech, it provides for a new arbitrary deadline, even though issues of irremediability, suicidality and capacity to consent have remained unresolved for the past two years. There is absolutely no evidence that those issues are going to be resolved a year from now.

What we have is nothing more than an arbitrary deadline, and a year from now, we are going to find ourselves in exactly the same place. Let us be clear. When we speak about suicidality, irremediability and capacity to consent, these are not issues to be brushed under the rug. These are serious legal and political issues that are fundamental to determining whether this can go forward.

In closing, whether this expansion takes place a month from now or a year from now, it will be an absolute disaster and will result in persons struggling with mental illness having their lives wrongfully terminated. It is time for the government to get its head out of the sand, stop being blinded by extreme ideology, follow the science, follow the evidence and scrap this ill-conceived expansion.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me say how fundamentally different a view I have of the committee hearings and of the many experts who came forward and testified at the special joint committee, which is set to release its report on Friday.

I note that the member mentioned the expert panel. On one side he says it is supporting his position, and on the other side he is saying it is proposing to go ahead with MAID for those with mental health issues as the sole underlying condition. I do not think he can have it both ways.

Ultimately, the expert panel has recommended that we move forward. We have consulted with an enormous number of individuals and organizations. We have heard from them at committee, and I think it is very clear that we should be going forward. However, there is a need for prudence and a need to ensure there is a little more time available for experts to be ready with the right training.

I ask the member why he is being misleading in his debate regarding the many people who came forward and gave us a different perspective than his at committee.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not misleading anyone. If anyone is misleading, it is the parliamentary secretary, with the greatest of respect to him.

I am not having it both ways. He mis-characterized what I said with respect to the expert panel. I said that the expert panel acknowledged what other experts who appeared before the committee acknowledged, which is that irremediability is difficult if not impossible to determine. Then, the expert panel washed its hands of coming up with recommendations on how this could be implemented safely. It offered no objective criteria. It said it could be done on a case-by-case basis.

My point with respect to the expert panel is how flawed of a report it was. The government's own expert panel said to go ahead with this, but if we read the fine print, it provided plenty of reasons why the government should not go ahead with it, not by not extending it, but by scrapping it altogether.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a Conservative, my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton has never made so many references to science. I understand that he is passionate about this, but he is claiming that the report of the expert panel says things that it does not, particularly with regard to ending one's life prematurely in the case of mental illness.

The only way for a person to end their life prematurely is by attempting or committing suicide. A person who is suicidal will never be given medical assistance in dying based on the assessment of one or even two experts. Feeling suicidal is a reversible condition. A suicidal state is reversible, and the condition for obtaining medical assistance in dying is the irreversibility of the mental disorder. The expert panel report states on page 13 that “the incurability of a mental disorder cannot be established in the absence of multiple attempts at interventions with therapeutic aims.”

A person who attempts suicide and comes under pediatric care as a result will have to be monitored. They will probably never have access to medical assistance in dying on the grounds of a suicidal disorder. Eligibility must be established over a period of years, not in a crisis situation. The individual will also have to prove that they have tried every form of treatment and have never refused treatment that could have treated the condition.

This is a sensitive subject, so people should be careful what they say. I hope my colleague will see reason. Those across the aisle are not the only ones vulnerable to blinding ideology

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Montcalm, who serves on the special joint committee and is a very thoughtful member on it.

At the end of the day, the member is arguing that somehow expanding MAID in cases of mental illness could be appropriate, but what he is demonstrating is exactly the opposite. He is highlighting why it would be inappropriate, given the fact that suicidality is a symptom of mental illness and given the fact that 90% of persons who commit suicide suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder. I think that all underscores the fact that this is not acceptable.

Expanding MAID for mental illness is not an appropriate treatment. It is not an appropriate solution for mental illness. What the government should be doing, instead of offering the mentally ill death, is offering the mentally ill hope, support and the care they deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have served on the special joint committee both in the previous Parliament and in this one. It was a lengthy amount of work, and certainly there was some very difficult testimony to go through.

I do not want to cover the same ground that previous members have asked questions on, so maybe I will change tack.

My friend, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, is our mental health and addictions critic, and he has constantly asked the government to bring mental health care funding up to parity with physical health care, understanding that there is in fact a real crisis. When I look at the conditions in ridings like mine, where we see the opioid crisis and the way it has been ravaging communities, there is so much underlying trauma and so many undiagnosed mental health disorders that are not being addressed.

I would like to invite the member to comment on that. In the midst of this very difficult conversation, and I agree that Bill C-39 is a necessity, we have to take this opportunity in time to make sure that our system is appropriately resourced and funded so that we are getting to Canadians who are falling through the cracks.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has contributed thoughtfully to the special joint committee.

In answer to his question, I note that during the 2021 election campaign, the Prime Minister claimed that mental health was a priority of the government. He committed to a $4.5-billion mental health transfer, but none of that money has gone out the door. There is no mental health transfer.

Instead of providing support and help, the government has been almost singularly focused on offering death, on offering MAID to persons who are struggling with mental health. It speaks to how misplaced the priorities of the government are. It also speaks to the fact that once again, like so much of what the Prime Minister says, his words are nothing more than empty words.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton for the incredible work he did on the committee. I was able to sub in a couple of times and was certainly impressed with his advocacy.

One thing that has arisen lately is the government's officials offering MAID to our veterans. I have a constituent who is one of those veterans and is an advocate. This was very upsetting.

I want to get the member's opinion on the slippery slope this legislation is on and the message it is sending to vulnerable Canadians, like those who have mental health issues. What kind of message is this legislation sending to those vulnerable Canadians?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the message it is sending to persons who are struggling with mental illness is that their life is not important and that we are going to offer them death instead of help and support.

The member raises the issue of veterans who are offered MAID completely inappropriately and, frankly, in contravention of the Criminal Code. The Minister of Veterans Affairs, when he came to the veterans affairs committee, said that it had happened once or twice and that he had undertaken a thorough review. We now know that is not true and that it has happened multiple times. It speaks more broadly to how the government has mishandled MAID in so many different ways.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2)(a), I would like to inform the House that the remaining Conservative Party speaking slots will be divided in two.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by providing some background on Bill C-39, which is not rocket science, when it comes down to it. Then I would like to talk about the philosophical foundation for dying with dignity, as well as the context and whether or not medical assistance in dying should be extended to patients whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder. I would also like to talk about mental illness generally in our societies and the experts' report before finally concluding my speech.

The context is rather simple. This is not about rehashing the entire debate. We are studying Bill C-39, which simply defers the provision in Bill C-7 that would have ended the two-year exclusion for mental disorders on March 17, 2023.

Following consultations, the government has decided to extend this exclusion clause for one year, which means that on March 17, 2024, mental disorders, or rather individuals whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder, would be eligible for MAID, subject to the conditions, limits, guidelines, standards of practice, safeguards and precautionary principles outlined in the expert report.

Before voting, I invite all parliamentarians in the House to read the report of the expert panel. It contains precautionary principles that do not lend credence to last week's comments by, for example, the leader of the official opposition. It really puts into perspective the ideology underlying the comments by my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton. Let me dive right into this matter.

Why is there such a delay? The reason is that we believe things should be done properly by the medical world. When a mental disorder is the sole basis for a request for MAID, how prepared are those working in this field across the country to ensure that MAID is adequately and safely delivered in light of the safeguards?

More providers and seasoned assessors will be needed. I should note that the experts did say that assessing whether a person with a mental disorder has the capacity to choose MAID is something they are already doing. Often a person may have cancer and also suffer from a mental disorder. It is not the sole underlying medical condition, and they still need to establish the person's capacity to decide for themselves. Again, in response to the oversimplification by my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton, first a person needs to want MAID, and then they need to meet the criteria.

As far as mental disorders are concerned, to meet the criteria, this is not going to happen overnight or anytime soon. It is going to take decades before anyone can have access. It is going to take time for the whole range of necessary treatments and possible therapies to be tested without the condition that the person demonstrate that they cannot bear any more and that their pain cannot be relieved. That is a long way from people living in poverty, who are depressed and who might have access to medical assistance in dying. We are far from it.

That being said, what are we talking about? When we talk about medical assistance in dying, I know that everyone in the House wants to do the right thing. Everyone has the best of intentions and wants to look after the best interests of patients and people who are suffering. However, being compassionate does not square with undermining human dignity. Human dignity is grounded in the capacity for self-determination.

Those are the philosophical premises. The law grants any individual with a biomedical condition the right to self-determination. Nothing can be done without the patient's free and informed consent. To that end, the role of the state is not to decide what that patient, who is the one suffering, needs. Rather, the state must ensure the conditions needed for them to exercise free will, so that patients can make a free and informed decision.

Historically, it was difficult to fight medical paternalism. At one time, people who had reached the terminal phase of an incurable disease did not have the right to die. The right to die was acquired, and it was called palliative care. Life was artificially prolonged, and people died from clinical trials or new therapies rather than dying a peaceful death in palliative care. However, palliative care is not a substitute for medical assistance in dying.

I find it strange that my colleague thinks it is unacceptable to grant access to medical assistance in dying to someone whose soul is suffering, and that he even opposes any form of medical assistance in dying, even when people are at the end of their life. He is opposed. At some point, if people are opposed, they need to explain why.

Why does the law recognize people's right to bodily autonomy throughout their lifetime but take it away from them at the most intimate moment of their lives? The government or our neighbour is not the one dying, so on what basis is the government giving itself the authority to decide for us at the most intimate moment of our lives?

These are the ethical and philosophical grounds and principles behind our position. Just because someone has a mental disorder does not mean that they should also be subject to social discrimination and stigma. Even though mental illness is now considered to be an actual illness, mental health is still not on the same footing as physical health. Mental illness results in discrimination and stigma.

Should we be telling people who have to deal with such discrimination and stigma that they will also never be given the right to MAID, even if they have been suffering from a mental illness and have had schizophrenia, for example, for 25 or 30 years? On what grounds are we refusing them that right? That is the basis of the expert panel's report. Do we give that right to someone with a mental disorder who is suffering, who has tried everything, whose problems are far from over and who says that they cannot go on?

There are people out there who have an ache in their soul, and unfortunately, we lose them when they attempt suicide. It is really no better. We absolutely must fight against suicide because it is one decision that cannot be undone.

In the report, the experts set out several precautionary measures. They talk about structural vulnerabilities like poverty. On page 11 of the report, the experts state the following: “In the course of assessing a request for MAiD—regardless of the requester's diagnoses—a clinician must carefully consider whether the person's circumstances are a function of systemic inequality”, and, if so, this should be addressed.

With respect to suicidal ideation, experts offer us another precautionary measure. It is not enough for a person to request MAID to have access to it.

The report states: “In any situation where suicidality is a concern, the clinician must adopt three complementary perspectives: consider a person's capacity to give informed consent or refusal of care, determine whether suicide prevention interventions—including involuntary ones—should be activated, and offer other types of interventions which may be helpful to the person”.

What is this claim about people who are depressed being able to request MAID? Members need to stop talking nonsense. That is not what the expert panel's report says. It says that incurability can be established over the course of several years. The patient must have exhausted all available therapies and treatments. However, that does not include overly aggressive therapy.

What does the member for St. Albert—Edmonton think should happen? When a person with a psychiatric disorder says that they reached their breaking point years ago, should psychiatric science insist that there is a treatment out there and that it is going to find it? That is what I mean by overly aggressive therapy.

Overly aggressive treatment may exist for all types of illness. Who gets to decide when it is too much? The Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Quebec have told us that it is up to the patient to decide. That is important, because the member for St. Albert—Edmonton keeps saying that we are cutting lives short, ending lives prematurely.

In reality, the opposite is true. Everyone wants to live as long as possible. People who are on what we call the second track, whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, want to live as long as possible. What they do not want is to be denied help when they reach their breaking point. If we do not give them access to MAID, they will find their own way to avoid ending up in that situation, because it is currently illegal for them, and they will end their lives prematurely. They will commit suicide.

The ruling that some contend should have been appealed to the Supreme Court states that there is an infringement on the right to life. The Conservatives' position infringes on the right to life because it forces people to end their lives prematurely rather than waiting for the moment of death, which sometimes is in one or two years. As proof, there is the case of Ms. Gladu. She did not go ahead with MAID, but she was relieved to know that she had that option. She did not commit suicide; she died naturally.

However, if her suffering became intolerable, she knew that she could access MAID because our compassionate and empathetic society would take care of her and ensure that she had a peaceful and dignified death. This meant that she could have the death that she did. Many people say that they choose to end their lives because they are not certain that they will be taken care of.

Is there anything more devastating than a suicide? That is a societal failure. We cannot be complacent about suicide attempts, about people feeling suicidal. In the health care system, mental illness, which is an illness like any other, absolutely must have all the necessary resources.

I just want to say a few words about the governments' ability to pay for the health care needs of the patients I am talking about, given the feds' post-pandemic offer. Governments have to deliver care to these people with irreversible illnesses, but they will not be getting money to do so. Over the next 10 years, they will barely be able to cover indexing on chronically insufficient funding. The federal government's share will go up from 22% to 24%. I hope government members are not too proud of that, especially considering that, during the third wave, people told us the system was in critical condition. The pandemic had destabilized it to the point that it would take 10 years to recover from the pandemic's side effects on patients without COVID. Right in the middle of the third wave, the Prime Minister said it would all be dealt with after the pandemic. We were told an agreement was imminent. I figured that they would come close to the $28 billion everyone expected, that they would give the governments of Quebec and the provinces the predictable funding they needed to rebuild their systems, take care of people over the next 10 years and finally recover from the pandemic.

I have heard the Conservatives say they will honour that small percentage. Of all the G7 countries, Canada still has the best borrowing capacity. If debt is unavoidable, what better justification for it than taking care of our people and restoring and rebuilding our health care systems?

I hear people say that individuals who have had an incurable mental disorder for years should not be given access to MAID on account of structural vulnerabilities. According to the expert report, however, two independent psychiatrists would have to be consulted. Not only would two independent psychiatrists be required, but we also have to consider recommendation 16. So far, I have been talking about recommendation 10, but my colleagues should hold on to their hats, because recommendation 16 states that, unlike for other kinds of MAID, when mental disorders are involved, there would be something called “prospective” oversight. This is different from retrospective oversight, as required by Quebec's commission on end-of-life care, which requires a justification every time MAID takes place. No, this does not happen after, but rather before, in real time.

This prospective oversight needs to be established in each jurisdiction, which is precisely what the delay will be used for. This additional safeguard needs to be established in controversial cases. According to the expert report, when an individual's capacity cannot be properly assessed, MAID is not provided, period. It is not complicated. There will be no slippery slope.

If there is a slippery slope, there is the Criminal Code, the courts, the police. Evil people do not belong in the health care system. They would be fired. If they do harm, they can be taken to court. To my knowledge, the provisions allow action to be taken.

My esteemed colleague seems to assume that everyone in health care is necessarily evil, which is absurd. The slippery slope is based solely on health care workers having evil intentions. However, to work in that field, people have to demonstrate skills proving the opposite. Consequently, all the precautionary measures and principles in this report are sufficient, in my opinion.

What needs to be done now is to ensure that people get training. Not all Quebec psychiatrists have read the report. If they listen to interviews given by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, they will wonder what is happening with their profession.

We must be able to see things realistically and proportionately, provide training, and ensure that we implement a law that will be both accessible and equitable throughout the country. We must avoid situations where an institution that does not want to provide MAID prevents someone from accessing it, if it is their choice and they meet all the criteria.

This is still a dangerous situation. It is happening in Quebec, and the college of physicians warned last week that, in a simple case of MAID for a terminal patient, some doctors did not want to refer the patient to another doctor who was willing to provide it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Montcalm for his speech.

I have to say that it has been a pleasure working with him over the last several months at the AMAD committee. He is an exceptionally thoughtful individual and I have learned a great deal from him.

Based on his numerous years of experience with MAID, and this particular issue of mental health as the sole underlying condition, could he outline for us, in a very short way, why he thinks there is a need to extend the deadline for the implementation of this provision?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that before I dove into this subject, read the expert panel's report multiple times and asked endless questions, I was among the unconvinced.

Second, because we cannot cut corners on this issue, the entire community of professionals in mental health care, mental wellness and mental illness needs to be informed and trained. It will require an adequate number of service providers and assessors. It will require guidelines. Each of the regulatory bodies from coast to coast will need to establish standards of practice for their members, so as to ensure safe, effective and adequate implementation.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really upset this morning. Let me explain. In 2017, my father passed away after a very difficult life. Many people here know his story. He struggled with ALS for 20 years. I was there with him during the five years he was in palliative care. At the time, he told me, “Don't worry. I have a respirator. I had an extra eight years of life and now I know that I can choose what to do with the rest of it. I have control over my life.”

My father had the right to medical assistance in dying before 2017, but he did not want it. He chose to refuse treatment. There were consultations and discussions and they gave him hope. Humans want to live. Perhaps some people in the House are lucky enough to have never experienced this type of situation.

My colleague mentioned all of the precautionary measures that are in place. He said that we need another year to make sure that we are doing things right. I would like him to tell us whether we can hope that, after this additional year, our Conservative colleagues will come to understand that humans are worthy of life and that, in the end, it should be their decision.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into petty politics. I am not saying that my colleague's question is at that level, but I do not want to get into that.

What I want to say, however, is that we can see the shortcut that my Conservative colleagues sometimes take when they speak. They act like MAID is the only choice, but that is not true. A person can die a natural death without any problems. MAID is only morally acceptable if, and only if, it is voluntary, period.

I want all my colleagues to feel well supported in dying, because that is what palliative care actually is: support for people who are dying. I hope that as each of them lies on their deathbed, they are able to wake up one morning and feel completely at peace and ready to go, rather than lingering in agony. I hope they will be able to benefit from MAID. That is the best we can hope for for any human being: to depart this life in peace.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say from the outset what a pleasure it was to serve on the special joint committee with the member for Montcalm, both in the last Parliament and in this one. I always appreciated his very thoughtful interventions and I could tell that he always came to committee quite well prepared.

The member and I have been here since 2015. He will remember that in the original bill, Bill C-14, there was a statutory requirement for a five-year review. We know that Bill C-7 was introduced before that review happened and that the government decided to accept a Senate amendment before it had a chance to establish a special joint committee. That process, that timeline, underlines why Bill C-39 is necessary now.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would just reflect on what has led us to this point and why Bill C-39 is necessary, and for this House to pass it quickly, because of the impending deadline and the fact that we do need to have some space to make sure we are getting these standards right. It is extremely important.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to say it: The government was not a good student. It dragged its feet for too long. It established the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying far too late.

When Bill C-7 was passed, the government committed to reviewing the act. We did more than review the act, because we looked at other facets. What the special joint committee did was review the existing act.

However, there was an unnecessary election in the meantime, and that caused delays. Our work was constantly disrupted by ultimatums from the court or by our own inability to meet the deadlines we ourselves had set. That is unfortunate.

I sincerely believe that, once the expert panel tabled its report, after doing the job properly, we needed to take the time to set up all the infrastructure necessary to get past the level of a house of horrors in terms of mental disorders and MAID.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to have choice. However, without palliative care, there really is no choice. The government has not done its part to continue putting palliative care measures in place.

What is the situation in Quebec?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all the data we have shows that people who are at the end of life have received palliative care. However, there are palliative care units that refuse to take someone into that unit because they allegedly requested medical assistance in dying. I find that unacceptable.

I feel that palliative care is a stepping stone to dying with dignity. As part of the process, someone may request medical assistance in dying. That must be respected. Not everyone can manage to endure their pain and live an existence that makes them suffer to the end.

I do not think the choice is ours; it belongs to the person. There is no reason why the government should not accept a patient's decision, their free choice. They must make an informed decision that is not subject to change, as we heard from some witnesses in committee. We were told that when some physicians had a patient before them requesting medical assistance in dying, they would force them to change their mind so that they would not ask for it and receive only palliative care.

Imagine the opposite scenario. That would make the news everywhere for months.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-39, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard some pretty wild accusations in the House today. The member for St. Albert—Edmonton suggested that it would be possible for anybody who is looking to commit suicide to be able to access medical assistance in dying. We then heard, through an exchange between him and a member from the Bloc, a completely opposite point of view on whether or not that was something that could be done.

Would the member like to weigh in on where he thinks the reality is? Is it with the member for St. Albert—Edmonton or the member for Montcalm?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I clearly outlined in my speech, the safeguards are very clearly laid out, not only in the Criminal Code, but also in what we believe the standards of practice should be, and that is going to apply to the medical community. That being said, the medical community has indicated it does need more time, hence the need for Bill C-39. I would just remind the hon. member that many stakeholders in the field of mental health have underlined the fact that the Liberal government needs to step up to the plate and increase the funding and the resources to appropriately address this major crisis happening from coast to coast to coast.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that C-39, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to the government's proposed Bill C-39, which seeks to extend the exclusion clause for those requesting MAID and whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness.

I would like to take a few moments to draw our attention to the MAID monitoring regime and what we know about MAID cases to this point.

Canadians hold personal and very strong views on medical assistance in dying. They deserve accurate and reliable information to inform their decisions and their opinions. This is why we are working to ensure that our public communications are clear and comprehensive through our annual reports.

We know that a lack of accessible information opens the door to misinformation about evolving MAID systems. To be clear, while the proposed legislation would not impact the monitoring regime directly, a year's delay could bring the added benefit of more time to collect and the ability to report on important data regarding those complex cases where death is not reasonably foreseeable.

Putting this into perspective and context, our government acknowledges the importance of the data and reporting in relation to MAID, so much so that the original 2016 legislation obligated the minister of health to collect the necessary information and report annually on MAID activity.

This formal monitoring system is important to informing our understanding in three ways: who applies for MAID in Canada, medical conditions prompting requests and trends in MAID cases since the 2016 legislation.

As such, we have been working in collaboration with provinces and territories, as well as other health care partners, to ensure a robust monitoring system. It is important to understand that this is a significant, collaborative commitment.

Let us begin with a glimpse into what we know right now. As of December 31, 2021, there had been a total of 31,664 MAID deaths in Canada. This is the total number of MAID deaths since the law permitting medical assistance in dying passed in 2016.

MAID deaths represent 3.3% of all deaths in Canada as of 2021. This is very much in line with jurisdictions that have MAID regimes similar to Canada's.

The proportion of all deaths attributed to MAID varies across the country, with the highest rates reported in Quebec and British Columbia, and lower rates in the remaining provinces and territories.

Conditions include multiple comorbidities, cardiovascular disease, organ failure and respiratory illnesses.

Although the current sample is small, 2021 data also shows that, where death was not reasonably foreseeable, 50% of individuals were approved for MAID, compared to 81% of cases where death was foreseeable.

Each MAID request where the person's natural death is not reasonably foreseeable is complex and unique, and early indicators show that approvals for MAID in this stream are much lower than when the person's death is reasonably foreseeable, 50% versus 81%.

The assessment process for a person whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable is often much more challenging due to the nature and complexity associated with medical conditions of this population. These assessments require detailed clinical analysis of each one of the elements of the eligibility criteria, which define a grievous and irremediable medical condition.

Let us spend a little bit of time talking about the human aspect of this data collection.

We should acknowledge that behind every data element in our annual report is, indeed, a human story. Implicated in each case is a group of people, their families, MAID assessors and providers, health care teams, and most importantly, the person making the request for MAID. The data we collect comes from thoughtful and compassionate conversations involving people who are making the most important decision of their lives and the MAID practitioners. The practitioners are responsible for assessing the requester in accordance with the person's wishes and the law. Through these discussions and the recording of information arising from them, we have a robust monitoring and reporting system for MAID in Canada.

MAID practitioners must ensure that every requester is aware of the services available that might relieve their suffering. This includes exploring treatment options, facilitating referrals and following up on the outcomes. When faced with a MAID request where death is not reasonably foreseeable, assessors spend much more time gathering the necessary information about the person and their condition. The process often involves a review of many years of treatments, surgeries and/or medications, as well as consultation with one or more experts in order to exercise due diligence in making a decision regarding eligibility.

New regulations for the monitoring of medical assistance in dying came into force on January 1 of this year. The MAID monitoring system will report on an expanded set of MAID data points that are collected according to these new regulations. The additional information should provide a greater understanding of persons applying for MAID whose natural deaths are not reasonably foreseeable, as well as their associated circumstances.

In conclusion, we are committed to transparency and accountability across all levels of government to ensure public confidence in the MAID regime. We are honouring this commitment by providing Canadians with accurate and reliable information on MAID as it continues to evolve in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I was very surprised listening to my colleague talking about the numbers they have. In 2016 there were 1,200 cases of MAID. That doubled in 2017 and doubled again in 2018. It was over 10,000 in 2021. That is nearly 30 people dying in this country every single day. That is more than double all the deaths from breast cancer or all the suicides in this country. We were promised a process to make sure we were not implementing a regime that was doing this without really strong checks and balances.

I find it staggering that the member could say this thing is working when we see such massive increases, much higher than in Europe or anywhere else, in medically assisted death in this country.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me clarify and reiterate what I said in my intervention. I talked about the total number of MAID-related deaths in 2021 being 10,950, of which 2% related to MAID for individuals whose deaths were not reasonably foreseeable. The numbers the member is quoting might be accurate, but that was not the point I was trying to make. As I also indicated, the total was nearly 30,000 since 2016, when the legislation came into force.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to follow up on the statistics my hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay pointed out from across the way. They are staggering. When we begin to consider them, it should cause all Canadians to pause, reflect and say that the legitimate concerns many of us raised in this House when this was first proposed continue to this day. There are inadequate safeguards in place to protect those who are struggling with mental illness and have other ailments in their lives that have challenged them for a particular season. MAID opens the door to a decision of such finality that it can cause grave consequences for many Canadians and their families.

What safeguards are going to be put in place to stop this from being abused any further?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I do not think that MAID has been abused, especially as it relates to mental health. As I intervened, I lost my father to cancer back in 2016. At that time I wished the MAID option were available to us. Having said that, we have felt in our government that the base of 219 cases is not representative enough of the data that we want. We want to ensure that the safeguards we should have are in place and strengthened. This is the fundamental reason that we are extending the timeline by a year and introducing this bill. If this bill is to protect those individuals who are dealing with mental illness, then they need all the supports to be able to make that decision.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member about what further things we need to be considering and thinking about. Could he elaborate a bit more on what he thinks are the most important factors that we need to be thinking about in this place as we consider this legislation?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, aside from the timeline that we have set to make sure that we have more data to be able to analyze the situation, it is also important to work with the provinces and territories to ensure that they have the processes, guidelines and support system they need. Then they can help those individuals who are in the process of making that decision to receive the support they need to come to the right decision.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I support this legislation putting a one-year hold on allowing MAID for mental illness.

We need to hold off on this until we have a broader consensus as to if and how we are going to do this. We need more safeguards in place. If we are going to do this, we need to make sure that we do it right. I do not think that we ought to have an automatic start date in one year as is planned.

To be clear, yes, I support this legislation in that MAID for mental illness will not be allowed beginning in March. However, from my perspective, we ought to make this hold indefinite. I know there are a lot of people out there who are really worried about this legislation because they have loved ones who are going through a hard time and they think, probably rightly, that some of those people will want to access MAID.

There are parents, siblings, partners, spouses and friends who are worried. Parents touch my heart the most because they are worried that the lives of their children could be affected. I can certainly sympathize with this because I have six children of my own. One does not have to be a parent to realize that almost everyone goes through a difficult time at some point in their life, hence our concern.

I know there are also a lot of psychiatrists out there who are really worried about this. There are psychiatrists who know that if their patients were to have more treatment, they would probably get better, but they are requesting MAID at this time.

Both these groups have legitimate concerns about this legislation. At the moment, I do not think the safeguards are in place, and if implemented now, the law would end up affecting a lot of people in a way that was not intended.

What is the intention of the law? I would submit that the intention of MAID for mental illness is that it should only apply to a very small group of hard-core cases. This seems to be the case in Holland, where only one in a thousand people, I am told, who apply for MAID for mental illness are actually granted it.

It is not intended for a 25-year-old who was abused as a child and has had intermittent depression ever since. It is not intended for the 30-something-year-old who remains depressed a couple years after the breakup of a marriage. It is not intended for somebody who is schizophrenic and is fine on their medication, but having stopped their medication, now wants to access MAID.

Some out there may say, “Why not? It should be the individual's choice”. As a teenager, I read Jean-Paul Sartre, and at the time, I agreed with him that the ultimate choice in life is being over nothingness. Perhaps I still agree with this. However, neither suicide nor attempted suicide is illegal in Canada. The question today is what role, if any, the state has in assisting suicide.

I worked a lot of years as an emergency room doctor, and I saw many people who were suicidal. My job was to assess whether people were suicidal, and if they were, to bring them into the hospital even if it was against their will. The law gave me the power to do so.

Many people would ask what right I have to tell someone what to do with their body and say that it should be their own choice. My response to them is that I think there are two legitimate reasons for the state intervening to prevent suicide.

One is in order to protect people from themselves. When someone is in the depths of depression, they do not see a light at the end of the tunnel. They cannot contemplate the possibility, let alone the probability, that they are going to get better. That is the nature of depression. That is what makes someone suicidal. Most of us know that, eventually, with a change of circumstances and enough time, people actually do get better.

The other legitimate reason for the state to interfere is to protect loved ones. A person who commits suicide is dead; they feel no pain. However, the loved ones continue to live the rest of their lives with the anguish of losing someone, often haunted by feelings that perhaps it was because of something they did or did not do.

The suicidal individual's inability to appreciate the possibility that they might get better should certainly make us reluctant to allow MAID for people with mental illnesses. Some people would ask whether there are people who really will not get better and who are irremediable. That is the requirement of law: The illness has to be irremediable.

The problem with that is that doctors are not really good at determining who is irremediable. Doctors do not have a crystal ball that can predict the future. In fact, studies show that doctors are not good at determining who is irremediable.

A recently published study by Nicolini et al. looked at clinicians' ability to determine irremediability for treatment-resistant depression. It reviewed 14 different studies. I will cite its conclusion: “Our findings support the claim that, as per available evidence, clinicians cannot accurately predict long-term chances of recovery in a particular patient with [treatment-resistant depression]. This means that the objective standard for irremediability cannot be met”. Furthermore, there are no current evidence-based or established standards of care for determining irremediability of mental illness for the purpose of MAID assessments.

As a long-time doctor, I find it absolutely mind-boggling that there are practitioners out there who are willing to administer MAID to someone knowing that perhaps with a bit of extra time the person would have gotten better. Good doctors worry about making mistakes. Good doctors do not want to kill off their patients. It seems to me that if there is even one person who is administered MAID and who, if they had not been given MAID, would have gone on to a happy life, that is a horrific tragedy. I would say it is something akin to capital punishment when it turns out the person was actually not guilty of the crime. If this happens, it is certainly on the conscience of every one of us in this place.

The number of people we can confidently say are irremediable is probably small. Some would say no, but I would offer a few comments. One is that anyone under 40 should never be considered irremediable, and in fact anyone under 60, unless they have had ongoing years of illness. I would also suggest that somebody who has not tried every kind of treatment and has not seen a lot of doctors and therapists should not be considered irremediable. Who is left? Perhaps if there is some 75-year-old who has no family and who has undergone many years of illnesses, tried every sort of treatment available and seen numerous doctors and no one can help, then maybe, and I emphasize the “maybe”, they should be considered for this.

Do I believe that the law, as implemented now, would really be confined to that small number of cases? No, absolutely not. Like a lot of members, I have been paying attention to the media and have heard of the many cases where we are just left shaking our heads that somebody would allow MAID for that. The reality is that there are a lot of practitioners out there with a very liberal approach to allowing medical assistance in dying, who seem to be willing to base it on perhaps just a phone call, practitioners who do not think it is necessary to talk to the family, to get to know the patient, or to consult someone who knows the patient.

Some people will say that the decision about standards of care and safeguards should be left to the colleges of physicians and surgeons. As a 35-year member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, I totally disagree with that. This is not the kind of decision that is normally left to the colleges, nor should it be; this is the kind of decision that should be left to the elected representatives, who in turn are accountable to the people.

In summary, if we are going to allow medical assistance in dying for mental illness, it should be to an exceedingly limited number of people. If we were to implement the law as it is now, I think a lot of people would be getting it whom the law was not really intended for, nor do I think we are that close, so I think there should be no fixed date on which this law comes into effect. When are we going to know we are ready to do this? I would suggest it would be when there is some consensus from the psychiatric community. From all the surveys I have seen, the majority of psychiatrists are against this, which is certainly one indicator.

We need to take however much time is necessary to do this right. This is not like other decisions made by the House of Commons. If we mistakenly take a life, all of the politicians in this room, all of the bureaucrats in Ottawa and all of the Supreme Court justices cannot bring that life back.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my hon. colleague's perspective. I heard a lot about the intention, and sometimes we have intention versus impact, so I am curious what he thinks the impact would be of just extending the deadline, as opposed to actually throwing out the legislation or supporting Bill C-314.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question before us now is really the coming date for implementation, which is mid-March. The intention of the legislation right now is to give us more time, and that is entirely appropriate.

We pride ourselves on making our decisions based on evidence. If we are going to make decisions based on evidence, then this certainly has to be given more time, which means that there has to be a delay on this so that it does not come into effect in March. What comes after is for us to determine. I personally think there ought to be indefinite time until we get this right.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River is well aware of my great respect for him. However, in listening to his speech, I found it riddled with confusion.

I wondered whether he read the expert panel's report on mental illness as the sole underlying medical condition. I believe that our thinking may not be quite so different. I think that his practice has shown him the need to take care in adopting such an approach. However, in reading the report, he will see that there are many precautions in place and very specific guidelines.

Indeed, just because there are not very many mentally ill people experiencing tremendous suffering does not mean we must not move forward. One person experiencing unimaginable and intolerable suffering is, in my opinion, one too many.

I would like to know my colleague's thoughts on this.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have not in fact read the report. At the moment, the problem is that we have 10 provinces and three territories that are all expected to come up with the appropriate safeguards, and I do not think any of them have actually publicly come forward with those safeguards.

I would further suggest that it ought not be the colleges of physicians and surgeons that are put in the position to have to put those safeguards in. It is up to us, the elected representatives who are accountable to the people, who ought to be the ones making those decisions, not the colleges of physicians and surgeons.

I would agree with the member that one person who stays in suffering is too many; however, I would also suggest that one person whose life is taken prematurely because of an overly liberal approach to MAID and the pain that that causes, particularly to the family, ought to be something we consider before making any decision that would allow that to happen.

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

Madam Speaker, when we voted on this legislation, we were told that Parliament would be able to review so we could tell whether or not we had overstepped and whether or not it had worked. We were never given that right. Instead, this was handed over to the unelected senators, who got it into their head that people who are depressed or who have a few problems should be able to die. We have to fix that. We never got to address whether or not these provisions were working, whether or not there need to be proper guardrails in place.

Would it not be better if this bill would just park this, stop it dead, until we can actually find out how this process is working for the people of Canada?

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, my guess is that if this were to go to the Supreme Court, it might well say that this kind of difficult decision, which involves balancing competing ethical values, is best left to the elected representatives, who are accountable to the people. We are the elected representatives, not the Senate. I have a lot of sympathy with what my colleague has to say.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-39, an act to amend an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), introduced by the Liberal Minister of Justice. This is obviously a particularly delicate subject.

The bill corrects a mistake made by the Liberal government. Another mistake, some will say. This government makes hasty, last-minute decisions and, as usual, has to backtrack. It is correcting one of its mistakes, but in doing so it will make another.

Let us look back to fully understand where we are today. When the government was preparing to amend the medical assistance in dying legislation in accordance with the most recent directives of the Superior Court of Quebec in 2021, the Senate made an unexpected amendment that would allow, starting on March 17, 2023, the provision of medical assistance in dying to individuals whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. The Liberals then said, yes, why not. the Liberal government accepted the amendment, which is now part of the legislation.

The amendment was accepted without study, reflection or any serious consultation. The date set, March 17, 2023, is completely arbitrary. What was the Liberal government's reasoning at the time for accepting this amendment? How did it come up with the date of March 17, 2023? It obviously relied on its political guesswork, and God knows just how much the Liberals govern haphazardly, without a compass, and by improvising in an indecent and dangerous manner. This decision is just one of many very bad decisions made by the Liberals since taking office.

There are two problems with this measure. The first is expanding medical assistance in dying to people whose only underlying medical condition is a mental disorder. The second is setting the date of March 17, 2023, an arbitrary date that was selected without argument or justification.

Let us look at what is being done elsewhere, and not just anywhere. Let us look at Quebec, where the subject of MAID and dying with dignity has seized Quebec parliamentarians for many years. I know, because I was there as an MNA and minister and I voted in favour of MAID. In my soul, my heart and my conscience, I believe that that was the right decision.

With a view to now expanding medical assistance in dying, in its great wisdom, the Parliament of Quebec is taking its time, thinking and studying. The Quebec National Assembly set up a multi-party Select Committee on the Evolution of the Act respecting end-of-life care. It closely examined whether the scope of medical assistance in dying could be broadened. It tabled its report, which was unanimously adopted by the National Assembly in December 2021. This is recent.

Imagine. The Select Committee on the Evolution of the Act respecting end-of-life care does not recommend that medical assistance in dying be made available when a mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition. It was obvious to the MNAs who sat on the committee that Quebeckers are not there and that there is no social acceptance of this issue.

However, the Quebec committee did not stop there. It went even further. In order to eliminate any possible grey areas, the committee recommended that the Government of Quebec amend its act to specify that medical assistance in dying is not available in instances where a mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition.

On page 58 of the committee's report, it states, and I quote:

The Committee recommends that access to medical aid in dying not be extended to persons whose only medical condition is a mental disorder; that, to this end, section 26 of the Act respecting end-of-life care be amended.

The committee added:

This recommendation is in line with the precautionary principle that Québec has upheld since the beginning of work on medical aid in dying. We believe that the risks associated with extending access to medical aid in dying to persons whose only medical condition is a mental disorder would entail too many variations and could therefore not be closely monitored.

It goes on to say:

In order to implement this recommendation, we believe that section 26 of the Act respecting end-of-life care should be amended to avoid the possibility that a mental disorder as the only medical condition give access to medical aid in dying.

The committee refused to extend access because of problems relating to incurability, social acceptability, diagnosis and lack of consensus among members of the public and within medical professional organizations.

The committee therefore opted to follow the precautionary principle. As I said before, this is the element that was so regrettably lacking from the Liberal government's decision-making process. Once the Quebec committee completed its work and submitted its unanimous report, the Government of Quebec introduced its Bill 38 in May 2022, which was less than a year ago. The Government of Quebec endorsed the committee's recommendation. To be clear, Bill 38 was never passed because there was an election, so it died on the order paper.

The bill would have amended section 26 of the act by adding a prohibition on administering medical aid in dying to a person whose only health condition is a mental disorder. I will quote clause 13 of the Government of Quebec's Bill 38:

A patient who meets the following criteria may make a contemporaneous request:

(1) be of full age and capable of giving consent to care;

(2) be an insured person within the meaning of the Health Insurance Act...

(3) suffer from a serious and incurable illness or a serious and incurable neuromotor disability;

(4) be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability;

(5) experience constant and unbearable physical or psychological suffering which cannot be relieved under conditions that the patient considers tolerable.

What I am about to say is important:

For the purposes of subparagraph 3 of the first paragraph, a mental disorder is not considered to be a serious and incurable illness.

Canada does not exist in a vacuum, and it is not disconnected from what is happening in Quebec. The difficulties experienced by Quebec exist across the country as well. We are not prepared for this expansion. If we do not take action now, if we do not pass this bill, in less than one month, people living with a mental illness could have access to medical assistance in dying. We do not want that, Quebeckers do not want that, and Canadians do not want that. Canadians would not understand our lack of action. That is why we need to vote in favour of this bill.

However, we will vote for it reluctantly and with heavy hearts. We do not want the change to take effect on March 17, 2023, but there is another catch in this bill.

Bill C-39, introduced by the Minister of Justice, extends the deadline by one year. The bill extends the March 17, 2023, date to March 17, 2024. Why is it one year? Why not push it back two years? Why not suspend or abolish this section altogether? Why rush the expansion of MAID to people living with mental illness when the country does not want it and when doctors themselves are divided on the issue?

I would like to close by saying that medical assistance in dying is a sensitive issue that speaks to our values and our history, too. What we are asking of the Canadian government is not to simply postpone the date. We are asking the government to give us time, as parliamentarians and as Canadian citizens, to take the time needed. I believe that rushing such matters is always ill-advised.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have read the recommendations of the committee of the Quebec National Assembly. I am interested in this, as the member is a Quebecker who seems to be opposed to it. The perception of a lot of us outside of Quebec is that the greatest support for more liberal approaches to medical assistance in dying is from Quebec. Is this not the case? Would she like to comment on that?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think Canadians are on the same page as Quebeckers. I think it would be in our best interest to take all the time we need to really think through this very sensitive and delicate issue, which involves very personal and deeply held values, so that we can properly assess all the consequences.

To be honest, I am concerned that the one-year delay will not change anything, let alone address the issues that are already being raised about expanding medical assistance in dying to people living with a mental health condition. Quite frankly, I do not think we are there at all. We would be rushing things if we move forward, and that would be dangerous for our society.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague who is a member of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying.

I would just like to provide her with a bit of context. Bill C‑7, which is the fruit of a compromise with the Senate, was meant to respond to a requirement in a court ruling to allow Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon to have access to medical assistance in dying.

No one in Quebec considered the passage of Bill C‑7, which allowed Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon to have access to medical assistance in dying, to be reckless. There was a consensus on it. It needed to be passed. We passed it while creating a special panel of experts that was meant to table a report within two years to inform a joint committee, which was tasked with reviewing the report and making recommendations that would come later.

We have to be careful when we talk about rushing things. Let us take our foot off the gas. By March 2024, we will have been thinking about this for three years.

What is more, when my colleague says that the public is not on board, I would like her to show me some polls to support that claim. In any event, the current problem is that her party wanted the committee to table a report in June because the Conservatives were against giving the joint committee any extensions on its deadlines so that it could do a good job. Each time, we fought for an acceptable deadline to do decent work. I think they are being a bit hypocritical.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think it would be better for my colleague to choose his words more carefully.

Unless I am mistaken, last week we heard him say in an interview that there was no agreement on the issue of MAID for those with a mental illness. My colleague also went to the trouble of stating that one in two experts did not agree.

I will close by citing the panel he spoke about.

The evolution of many mental disorders, like some other chronic conditions, is difficult to predict for a given individual. There is limited knowledge about the long-term prognosis for many conditions, and it is difficult, if not impossible, for clinicians to make accurate predictions about the future for an individual patient.

I will stop there.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is another crisis underlying the discussion we are having right now, and that is the mental health crisis in this country. The government promised to put funding in place for Canadians to get help, but the Liberals have really been dragging their feet on that.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the current situation. Does she think the government should provide more resources and make sure that mental health issues really are recognized as a serious problem?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Mental health is a very serious issue in our society. Rather than talking about medical assistance in dying for people with mental health disorders, the government should make funding available, and quickly, so that everyone in this country living with mental health challenges, whether in rural or urban areas, has access to care.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-39, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to medical assistance in dying. It is a bill I will be supporting to protect the most vulnerable Canadians from the Liberal government's reckless expansion of medical assistance in dying to Canadians who are suffering solely from a mental illness.

Unbelievably, if Bill C-39 does not pass, Canadians struggling with a mental disorder or illness will be able to access MAID as early as next month. As the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention said, “Just as life is getting harder in Canada, it is getting easier to die.”

It is important to be perfectly clear that when considering MAID in the context of someone who is not dying as a result of their condition, such as a mental disorder alone, we are talking about suicide. It is almost as if the Liberals have given up. Instead of protecting the most vulnerable in society, they have opted for the easy way out. They have chosen a dangerous path, a slippery slope. They have opened medical assistance in dying to the most vulnerable in our society, and now they want to stop the clock, buy more time and find another politically expedient reprieve without doing anything to help.

I listened intently to the debate today, and honestly, it almost makes me ashamed to be a politician. Earlier today, the minister said that we need more time. Yes, we do. I have said this since the very first debate we had on MAID in 2016. During my intervention back then, I said as a new member of Parliament that nothing prepares one to adequately debate or intervene on such a weighty issue. We need to ensure we get this right, yet the Liberals rushed it through.

We have all heard very real stories: an Ontario man requesting MAID because it was more preferable than being homeless, the woman who has applied for MAID after seven years of not finding affordable housing and Canadians accessing food banks and asking for help with MAID. More and more Canadians are struggling, and we should be doing everything to support them, not giving up on them. We have also heard the unbelievable stories of Veterans Affairs employees suggesting MAID to veterans who are struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder. These are real stories; they are not sensationalism.

As the Canadian Mental Health Association has said, “Canada is failing to meet its human rights obligations when [Canadians] with a mental illness cannot receive the programs, supports and resources they need to be well and live with dignity.” The government is failing to provide even the most basic programs and supports.

This is a topic that my constituents feel very strongly about. It is a divisive topic, to say the least, and I respect people's decisions, but one thing is clear: A majority of my constituents, and indeed Canadians all across our beautiful country, are against the expansion of MAID for Canadians solely dealing with mental illness or disorders.

Canadians need to know what we are fighting for today. We need to look beyond what we are debating. The simplicity of Bill C-39 is a contradiction to the complexity of the issue. What we are really talking about is the ability for those suffering with mental illness to end their lives. Instead, we should be here today talking about what we can do to help those in need and what we can do to provide the services that will save lives.

Earlier today and throughout the debate, the Liberals have tried to explain away the provisions that included mental illness in MAID. They have attempted to shift the focus from what is actually happening to what is politically expedient, with the exception of our hon. colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River, whose speech I truly appreciated. Instead of addressing the issue head-on, they are looking for us as parliamentarians to buy more time to find a soft landing.

I will be voting in favour of Bill C-39, but I cannot support the addition of suicide to MAID ever. Let us be honest that this is exactly what we are talking about. There are times when partisan politics are called for and this not one of those times. We can disagree on tax hikes, we can disagree on gun legislation and we can disagree on who is best prepared to move our country forward. However, we cannot disagree on the importance of life and the importance of fighting for those who are struggling and who believe their only way out of the hardship they are experiencing is death. Is that not what we are here for? Is that not what all of us, all 338 members of Parliament, ran on? Was it not to stand up for those who are struggling, Canadians from coast to coast?

We need to be doing everything we can to make sure we are helping those who are struggling and who are the most vulnerable. We should be focused on offering help and treatment rather than assisted death.

Just two short years ago, all members of the House stood and voted in favour of creating an easy to remember three-digit suicide prevention hotline. It has been a long road forward, but this fall, Canadians who find themselves in trouble will have a chance to get the help they need. When seconds matter, they will not be forced to google a 10-digit number. They will simply pick up their phone to dial or text 988, and they will be able to talk to a person to start the process to get help.

The 988 hotline will not be the end point. It will be the beginning. It will provide one more tool with which those who are suffering can reach out for help.

As many of my colleagues know, I have dedicated my life to fighting for those who suffer silently or struggle with mental illness. I have sat with so many families devastated by suicide whose only hope is that we do everything in the House to ensure other families never experience what their families have. There is so much pain and so much guilt. Through my work, I have met many who have struggled with mental illness or mental injury due to their service.

I think about my friends. Jason is a giant of a man who was a firefighter. He was gripped with PTSD and wanted to die by suicide, but instead, he chose life. Now he helps others on their journey to beat PTSD and OSI. My friend Kent continues to serve our community each and every day. I think about their families every day and how I am so thankful my friends chose life.

I think about my own life and how at one point, I was struggling. It was one intervention, one by chance intervention that made me chose life. When someone is struggling with a mental injury, it is sometimes tough to see the forest through the trees. Sometimes people cannot see the light through the darkness. Sometimes people just need someone to tell them they are fighting for them and to help them get the assistance they need.

I live every day to fight for those who are struggling. We need to be doing everything we possibly can to make lives easier for Canadians, to give hope when it seems there is none. We need the government to be working with stakeholders to find the means to support those with mental illness. We have spent far too long talking about it. We have spent far too much time on studies that sit on shelves somewhere and gather dust. We have spent far too long doing nothing.

I will be supporting this legislation, but I will never support the inclusion of mental illness in MAID. It is a slippery slope. We need to take the next year or longer, find out how we can provide real support and figure out where we can actually make a difference. We need to spend the next year at least working on solutions that will keep Canadians alive.

A few weeks ago, I had a meeting with a man whose young daughter had ended her life by suicide. We spoke over Zoom for almost an hour, and I listened to his story. I heard the grief. I heard the despair, and I heard the regret.

Those who have children know what I am talking about. We live our lives to make our children’s lives better. We want the world for them. We want to give our kids everything we never had. We want this place to be better for them, and we want them to know we care.

What I heard in that man’s voice was utterly devastating. It was heart-wrenching. He said to me, “Todd, I can live with the death of my daughter, but thinking of what she had to go through, how many hoops she had to jump through just to access help, and how she had to navigate her crisis all alone is unbearable.” He said that he can live with the death of his daughter.

I honestly do not know how someone can listen to those words and think that what we are doing here is totally acceptable. I do not mean the year-long reprieve the government wants us to support. I mean the fact that we are even at this point, having this discussion. Until we have provided every support, exhausted every means, done everything we possibly can to help someone through their pain and suffering, my God, how can we even be here talking about this? The impact of that meeting will live on with me forever: the pain in his voice, the hurt, and the image of his daughter reaching out for help that was not available.

Conservatives do not believe that medical assistance in death is an acceptable solution to mental illness and psychological suffering. Our health care system should help people find the hope that they need to live, not assist in their deaths.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his touching testimony.

I want to tell him that, in a debate like this, it is important to be able to distinguish between various realities. This is not a debate about mental health. A debate about mental health means talking about prevention. This debate is not about all mental disorders but rather incurable mental disorders. We must accept that there are people with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia which is incurable and irreversible.

The suicidal state to which he refers, as he demonstrated both through his own testimony and that of other friends, is reversible. If he reads the expert panel's report, he will understand that this is not what is being discussed here and not what we will legislate. A suicidal state is reversible. No effort will be spared to provide the resources needed to reverse that state.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, the intervention of our hon. colleague across the way and others from the Bloc today have absolutely frustrated me to no end, but I appreciate their points of view. I believe recovery is always possible.

As our colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River has said, even the experts do not agree with what our Bloc colleague is saying. There are some who can recover and lead healthy and viable lives. Those are the people we should be fighting for all the time, making sure that they know we are there putting in the supports so they do not have to jump through a million hoops just to get the help they need.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for what I believe is an important intervention and intersection between health care, mental health and this bill. Of course, it is no secret that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are enduring an incredible level of poverty. Poverty is one of the driving forces that contribute to folks' mental health and the fact that they cannot see a light at the end of that tunnel when they fall behind.

Does the member support the New Democratic Party's call for a guaranteed livable basic income, which would raise folks out of this kind of poverty? I hear the Conservatives laughing right now about this, but a guaranteed livable basic income would ensure that folks actually have a chance to get out of poverty to begin a path of recovery. The member just stated that he believes everyone deserves a chance at recovery and that everyone can. Does he support this bill, which would ensure everyone has the resources to survive?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that we should be viewing mental health in parity with physical health. Yes, there are a lot of different things that contribute to one's mental health, such as affordability, access to food and homelessness. We should be making sure that we are doing everything to raise people up and offer the supports that they need. First and foremost, the government needs to follow up and actually follow through with its mental health act promise that it made during the previous election.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank our hon. colleague from Cariboo—Prince George from the bottom of my heart for the work he has done in this place for people who are suffering from mental illness and who are feeling suicidal ideation, and on the need for the ability to get that 988 number. I know how heartfelt his engagement is on this.

I will also be voting to see Bill C-39 through, but I probably differ from my colleague on the question of at what point do we say there has to be, with proper protocols and rules, access for people to medical assistance in dying. Is the member open to considering at some point, if there were a medical consensus on this, that we should proceed to extend to mental health issues as well?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a tough one for me. I would have to actually work with the experts who are out there. Right now, as it sits, I could never support medical assistance in death for those who are struggling with mental illness because I believe recovery is always possible.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House. Of course, speaking on issues as weighty as medical assistance in dying, these are perhaps some of the most difficult things we will speak of in the House. I note that this is going to be an issue I am sure we will face in the chamber over the next several months, and perhaps again, as the bill comes to pass.

Today we are talking about mental disorder as the sole underlying medical condition for Canadians to access medical assistance in dying. The bill is presenting legislation for a one-year delay. Why is the government asking for a one-year delay? Certainly, this is about the concerns Canadians have across this great country with respect to the presentation of the government.

Perhaps, it will be similar to Bill C-21, when the issues Canadians had were brought forward by the Conservatives, and the Liberals had to change position on that bill. We know that there are mental health advocates who have significant concerns about the bill, such as the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry, which brought forth issues related to mental disorder as the sole underlying medical condition.

One of the things that is germane is to help people understand what it is we were studying at the joint committee on medical assistance in dying. We were talking about mature minors. We were talking about advance requests. We were talking about Canadians with disabilities. We were talking about the state of palliative care in Canada, and we were talking about Canadians who suffer with a mental disorder. When we looked at these particular topics, there were many contentious issues, and it became heated and personal at times, which was perhaps as it should be.

For comparison, I think we need to understand that, when we look at Canada and its perhaps 38 million people, we know that in the last year, 10,000 people died from medical assistance in dying. In California, which has a very similar population and perhaps similar rules, there were only 400 deaths due to medical assistance in dying.

People might ask why we would not compare with the Netherlands. It has been at this for a while, and maybe it is a better representation. They have a population of 17 million people and about 5,000 people died to medical assistance in dying.

They already have statutes that include depression, dementia and all the other things I have mentioned previously, so if we wanted to compare that directly to Canada, including depression and perhaps advance requests, they would have about 10,000 deaths at the current time. We know that in Canada, without mental disorder and without advance requests, there are already 10,000 people who have died between 2020 and 2021 due to MAID. That is a year over year increase of 32%.

That, to me, is concerning, and I think that anybody in this chamber would also know that on the world stage, sadly, in my mind anyway, Canada has been a world leader in medical assistance in dying, and many countries around the world have brought forward concerns of the slippery slope that Canada is now going down.

One of the things the government has promised to Canadians, which they have not delivered upon, is the Canada mental health transfer, and I am sure that my hon. colleague just before me spoke about this, so I am sad to have missed it. That was a $4.5 billion transfer that was promised by the government in its platform in the last election. I read a new article about this, and it says, “in August 2021, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said this brand new transfer was needed”—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, in his speech, the member called the Prime Minister by his first name.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I think the hon. member may have just caught himself as well. Although the hon. member may be reading a quote, he can just mention “Prime Minister” instead of mentioning the name.

The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for that astute advice. I really appreciate it.

This article said, “because mental health should be a priority.” That is the article I am quoting, which has the Prime Minister's name. It is important that Canadians understand that.

“But despite the sense of urgency in [the Prime Minister's] remarks last year,” and I have changed that word to satisfy the chamber, because we all know who the Liberal Prime Minister is, “no money has yet materialized for this new Canada mental health transfer”.

I am going to say that again, just to make sure that everybody has heard it. No money has yet materialized, “including an initial $875 million that was supposed to have been spent or budgeted by now, according to the Liberal party’s 2021 election platform.”

“The Liberal platform document included a line-by-line costing of all its election promises, and it outlined a promise to spend $250 million in 2021-22 on the new mental health transfer, and then $625 million in the current 2022-23 fiscal year, with additional amounts over the next three years adding up to $4.5 billion total.”

“None of the promised spending over the last two fiscal years has yet been allocated or spent.”

To me, that is important. Again, I will quote from the Liberal Prime Minister, “because mental health should be a priority.”

Where is the priority of mental health, and why is it not materializing?

We know that my hon. colleague, who spoke just before me, talked incessantly about a three-digit suicide prevention hotline, which was harder than giving birth to a baby elephant to make it happen. It is absolutely shocking to think about how the government wants to talk about being helpful to Canadians and how it has their proverbial backs, etc. I just do not see that. That is absolutely atrocious.

This article goes on to talk about the national director of public policy for the Canadian Mental Health Association, and they pointed out that the “April budget contained no money earmarked for this new transfer.”

“Let’s be clear, for it not to be in Budget 2022, at least with a timeline of ramp up to the $4.5 (billion), you know, it was really concerning to us.” That was stated by the Canadian Mental Health Association.

After eight years, why does the government continue to fail Canadians? That would be a great question to know the answer to.

We also heard in the health committee last week that counsellors and psychotherapists are required to charge GST on their services. We know that, sadly, many Canadians do not have private coverage for those services, but to add insult to injury, to pour salt in a wound, what we are now requiring is for Canadians to pay GST on those services. How does that make any sense?

It goes on to say that, “psychiatrists across the country [are] 'incredibly concerned' about patients needing better access to care, including addiction services”. These are addiction services that the government would tout are a whole other kettle of fish and are quite shocking.

There is still controversy around providing medical assistance in dying for people with mental disorders among providers. Obviously, one of the other things that I think is very important is the fact that the government has not transferred any, zero, nada, zilch, of the $4.5 billion. Think of my riding of Cumberland—Colchester and the difficulties that rural Canadians are suffering.

Because of their geography, rural Canadians are struggling not only to get access to mental health, but also to put gas in their cars to get them to the actual appointments. The punishing carbon tax that the government wants to put on everything in this country is really affecting their ability to have the money to pay the extra GST required for counselling and psychotherapy.

We all know that if people are struggling to put food on the table, and if Canadians have to choose between eating and looking after their mental health, they are likely going to choose eating. This is a sad commentary on life in Canada where it appears that everything is broken. The sad commentary will continue in this country because of the punishing taxes the government wants to continue levying on Canadians, which is making life unaffordable.

We know the crisis in mental health is going to continue. It would appear that approximately one in three Canadians is struggling with their mental health. We know that the government has put out its own projections to say, if we read the report on departmental results, it would expect that 22% of Canadians would not be able to access mental health care, and the actual result is 25% of Canadians cannot access mental health care. This is unacceptable. Zero percent of Canadians should have this issue, and we have a government that thinks 25% is acceptable.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have been hearing a lot of very disturbing news items about people who are living in poverty. A lot of them are people with disabilities. A lot of those people have mental health issues, and they are considering MAID because they cannot afford to live in dignity.

I am wondering if the member would join the NDP in saying that those people should have the resources to live in dignity, whether they are living with disabilities or not. They would need the resources to buy food. They would need affordable housing.

Would the hon. member comment on that side of the problem?

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I will not join the NDP. That certainly is something I would not entertain.

What we do know is that Canadians are suffering significantly in this country. How we go about solving that problem is certainly an issue that would be a matter of debate for many years here in the chamber.

We know that Canadians around the country are looking at the Conservatives and saying they need a change in the government. They know that the Conservatives have ideas that are going to allow Canadians to make their own money, to spend their own money in the way Canadians think is desirable and to be a part of the greatest country in the world. That is how Conservatives would do that.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to three or four speeches, and members seem to be talking a lot about the idea that we need good mental health care, that we need psychologists and psychiatrists, that we need to help people before considering the option of medical assistance in dying for people with mental illness. For all that to happen, we need more money in the health care system. There was a meeting about improving health care last week, but the offer that the federal government put on the table was shameful. The leader of the official opposition said that he would honour that offer. It seems to me that everyone agrees that better mental health care is needed, but that means that the government needs to increase funding for the health care system.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. I think his party should be calling for more health care funding.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that great question.

We know, very clearly, there are multiple ways to fix the health care system. Certainly those would be rolled out, as we come closer to election time, in the platform of the Conservative Party. What we also know is that people who want to immigrate to this country to be a part of the health care system are being disrespected in terms of how their credentials may or may not be recognized in this country.

As everybody in the chamber knows, if we were going to create another psychiatrist from inception, at the time of going to university, there is a four-year undergraduate degree, four years of medical school and at least four years of residency. We cannot wait for that.

On this side of the House, when the Conservatives form the government, we would be very respectful of immigrants and the talents they bring to this country, and how they could help the ailing health care system.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been sitting on the special MAID committee with the member for some time, and I appreciate his contribution.

I take issue when he said that the conversations have been heated and personal. I do not remember it being that way. There were passionate discussions, but it was certainly never personal. I hope he did not find that I ever contributed to that impression.

We can disagree all day long on whether the government has been making mental health funding a priority. He has made a point of talking about the mental health transfer. If the mental health transfer had happened yesterday, is there any scenario in which the member would agree that mental health is appropriate grounds for MAID, or is it just full stop for him?

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I do not recall my hon. colleague making anything personal in the MAID committee, so I am thankful for that.

There is one thing that is very important. We can talk about scenarios, what-ifs, therefores and plausibility, but let us be clear. What we know is that the Liberal government committed $4.5 billion to fund the Canada mental health transfer, and it sent none of it, zero, zilch, nada.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to outline what we are talking about here today: Bill C-39. Currently, due to Bill C-7, the Criminal Code explicitly states that, when it comes to MAID, mental illness is not to be considered an illness, disease or disability. However, when Liberals passed Bill C-7 two years ago, it had a sunset clause, and this is an important clarification. That means an important guardrail protecting those with mental illness from being eligible to seek MAID during times of depression or other crisis would expire two years after that bill passed, which means it is set to expire next month.

Now the Liberals, having heard the outcry from across the country, from the medical community and those serving the folks with mental illness, have introduced Bill C-39. This is a last-minute attempt to save face by extending the prohibition on MAID for mental illness for one more year. That is not good enough.

Conservatives have been united in our opposition to expanding the Liberal government’s medical assistance in dying regime to Canadians with the sole underlying condition of mental illness. We do not believe that medical assistance in dying is an acceptable solution to mental illness and psychological suffering. Our health care system should help people find hope when they need to live and not assist in their deaths.

Allowing MAID for people with mental illnesses such as depression blurs the line between suicide assistance and suicide prevention. Experts have been clear that expanding eligibility for medical assistance in dying to Canadians living with mental illness cannot be done safely. It is impossible to determine the irremediability of an individual case of mental illness.

For example, Dr. Sonu Gaind, who is the physician chair of the MAID team at the Humber River Hospital in Toronto, where he is chief of psychiatry, states, “I know that some assessors think they can make those predictions of irremediability in mental illness, and some assessors think they can separate what we consider traditional suicidality from what’s fuelling psychiatric MAID requests. And on both counts they’re wrong. The evidence shows that.”

Andrew Lawton, Canadian columnist and journalist, wrote a harrowing personal article two years ago, stating:

If Bill C-7 were the law of the land a decade ago, I’d probably be dead....

In 2010, I nearly succeeded in committing suicide. My battle with depression was worsening, and I was losing. Miraculously, I pulled through: I count my lack of success in that attempt as my happiest failure, for which I’m grateful to God’s intervention and a team of dedicated healthcare practitioners.

It’s saddening to think that under different circumstances, these practitioners could have been the ones killing me rather than saving me....

Bill C-7 undermines years of attention and billions of dollars of funding to bolster mental illness treatments and supports, including, ironically, suicide prevention and awareness campaigns and programs.

This bill kills hope and reinforces the flawed belief afflicting those with mental illness, that life is not worth living and that one’s circumstances cannot improve.

Every time I have risen to speak on these bills, that has been my emphasis as well: Life is worth living. Every life has dignity and value. We need to be far better as a nation at communicating that to those who need to hear it the most.

Two years ago my friend Lia shared her story with Canadians. She said, “I was 15 when I first tried to kill myself and I attempted suicide seven times in the years that followed...I’m speaking about my mental health struggles because I’m scared that doctors could soon be able to end the lives of people suffering with mental illness - people like me. To be honest, if medically assisted suicide had been available when I was in university, I would have used it to end my suffering as soon as I could.”

This is Lia's call to parliamentarians: “I don’t need someone to tell me how to die, I need someone to tell me to stay.”

The House should be writing laws that instill the value of life and that there is no question this is what we value. Laws need to encourage people to stay rather than seek to end their lives.

Dr. John Maher is an Ontario psychiatrist and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Ethics in Mental Health. Dr. Maher has highlighted that the wait times for mental health treatment in Ontario programs are up to five years long, and that one of his patients recently told him that he would like assisted suicide because he believed that nobody loved him.

Dr. Maher also rejects assisted suicide as a solution for mental illness by stating the following:

You're assisting someone in the completion of their suicide. The doctor is the sanitized gun...I'm not at all disagreeing that there are people who have an irremediable illness. What I defy you or any other person in the universe to prove to me is that it's this person in front of you.

The suicide prevention community has also pointed out the harsh reality for costs. Shawn Krausert, the executive director of the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention, testified at committee and said the following:

Ending the life of someone with complex mental health problems is simpler and likely much less expensive than offering outstanding ongoing care. This creates a perverse incentive for the health system to encourage the use of MAID at the expense of providing adequate resources to patients, and that outcome is unacceptable.

Most Canadians do not support expanding MAID to those with mental illness as the only underlying condition. Today, a survey was published in which a mere 30% of Canadians support MAID for those who have a mental illness.

I can assure members that, among my constituents, that number is far lower. The vast majority of my constituents want the federal government to focus on helping people live well and to invest in palliative care and suicide prevention instead of assisted suicide.

Some of the petitions I have tabled here over the years were sent to me by constituents who have recognized that suicide is the leading cause of death for Canadians between the ages of 10 and 19. They are specifically calling on the government to protect Canadians struggling with mental illness by facilitating treatment and recovery, not death.

I agree with my constituents, and the majority of Canadians, that the government should withdraw this bill entirely and table a bill that permanently removes the extension and expansion of assisted suicide for mental illness when it is an underlying condition.

I want to end with some words from my friend Lia. She says:

I want to say right now, to whoever might need to hear this: death doesn’t have to be the answer. It takes work. It takes time. It takes others. And it's complicated. But there is hope...I’m sharing my story because I’m not the only one who has more to live for. There are people in your life who do too. As someone who struggles with mental illness, I don’t need someone to tell me how to die. I need someone to tell me to stay.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his effort.

That said, if Bill C-39 were withdrawn, on March 17, mental disorders would not be excluded from medical assistance in dying. It is important to know what we are talking about.

Also, I do not know on what authority my colleague can claim that he would have had access to medical assistance in dying, given that the expert report clearly states that no expert on the planet considers suicidal ideation to be irreversible. Therefore, even if he was thinking about suicide, he would not have had access to medical assistance in dying.

What makes him say that he would have had access to MAID?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think that is what the article by my friend Mr. Lawton was talking about. It was the very fact that, under this new regime that comes into place a year from now, he would be eligible for assisted suicide. He is quite convinced of that. It is not clear to him in the law, and it is not clear to me in the law, that, if he were seeking help in 2023 rather than in 2010, there would be any obligation for the health care system to promote life rather than to fulfill his wishes to die. These were, in fact, his wishes at the time when he attempted suicide. That is the way I read the law. That is the way Andrew Lawton reads the law, and I have no evidence to support the opposite of that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, as members know, more and more Canadians are speaking about the concerns that have been raised across the country about the lack of supports for mental health. We are in the midst of a mental health crisis. We are not seeing adequate resources, by any means, being applied to help address the needs that so many Canadians have. It is very relevant to the debate we are having tonight.

Does my honourable colleague feel we need to be putting those supports in place immediately so that Canadians who are experiencing challenges around mental health get the support they need and deserve?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, yes, I agree that we need to ensure we have the supports in place to support those who are going through mental health challenges, but I also think we need to address some of the underlying causes.

Why is there a mental health crisis in this country? After eight years of the Liberal government, out-of-control inflation, cost of living going up dramatically and a general sense of the country not progressing and not flourishing have led to a significant increase in the mental health crisis across this country. We have to ensure we bring hope to the country and to Canadians, and work to improve the general mental health of Canadians across the board.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, my concern is that I have many constituents in my riding with disabilities, and some of them have no voice. The people who are caring for the individuals with disabilities also have mental health issues, but they also have POAs for the individuals. How is that going to impact their decisions if they are not in their right minds to make those decisions for their disabled children?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the disability community has reached out to me repeatedly over the last number of years, given the regime on euthanasia and how there are two classes of citizens in this country when it comes to the eligibility for MAID. There are those who will be offered help and those who will not be offered help. That is a troubling thing.

I believe that the health care system in this country should be out of the business of MAID and should be in the business of helping to cure people. I understand the Supreme Court rulings, but the Supreme Court never said anything about having to have the health care system assist suicide or euthanizing people in this country. I think we can bring forward a system that works to ensure that life is valued in this country and that folks with disabilities feel that they are not being burdens on our society.

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

Madam Speaker, I have decided to share today for the first time the story of my young cousin Gabriel, who died by suicide on March 25, 2021. I hope his story provides some comfort to others and sharpens our understanding about the impact of the government’s proposal to legalize suicide for those with mental health challenges.

Gabriel was born here in Ontario, but spent most of his life in the United States. He had a loving and supportive family, which included three siblings, but he struggled throughout his life as a result of personal health circumstances that were generally hard to classify. He had Asperger’s syndrome and other things that affected the way he experienced the world. These health challenges made it difficult for him to form relationships with his peers and contributed to a sense of rejection and loneliness, but his family was always there for him, helping him work through the challenges and helping him to see his God-given dignity and purpose.

In conversations, my uncle has reflected on the contrast between Gabriel’s experience and that of his younger sister, Anastasia. Anastasia has Down syndrome. Society perceives her as having a disability. In fact, babies with Down syndrome face an extremely high abortion rate because our society fails to value people with Down syndrome, and also because it is poorly understood. Though perceived as having a visible disability, Anastasia is full of life, joy and happiness, which she effortlessly shares with all she encounters, especially those who are suffering. Gabriel, by contrast, did not look any different. He did not have an easily recognizable disability, but had immense pain that was largely invisible to the world around him.

I last saw Gabriel during a family road trip in 2019. At the time, he was working as an independent construction contractor and doing very well. However, as happened with many young small business owners, his business was hit hard by the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, even though he himself was not at great risk from the virus. In March of 2020, a lot of North America and the world shut down as a result of fears about this novel coronavirus. People died from the virus, but many also lost livelihoods and communities, as well as opportunities to engage in meaningful work, so many died by suicide, in proportions that we will never know precisely.

The current government chose these unusual circumstances as the time to push forward its radical agenda of legalization of medically facilitated suicide for those facing mental health challenges. It brought its new euthanasia law into force on March 17, 2021. This bill made changes to the euthanasia regime in Canada that were universally decried by the disability community.

As it relates to mental health, the bill contained a mechanism by which the prohibition on legalized medically facilitated suicide would automatically expire two years later, on March 17, 2023. Thus, the government legalized suicide for those with mental health challenges, but delayed the coming into force of that legalization until this year. Meanwhile, my cousin died by suicide eight days after the passage of the legislation, on March 25, 2021, just shy of his 26th birthday.

These events were not connected. My cousin was not following Canadian politics at the time and would not have seen our deliberations as being relevant to him where he lived. Nonetheless, as I got the call from my father in the lobby of this very chamber, I thought about the many people like Gabriel who will be affected by our work, the many people like Gabriel who live with unseen pain, have highs and lows, and are deeply loved by family and friends.

Until now, the message we have all sought to deliver to people like Gabriel is that they are loved and valued and that their lives are worth living. It has been famously said, “He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.” This insight was explored in depth by the great psychiatrist and concentration camp survivor Dr. Viktor Frankl. Frankl observed and reflected on the circumstances of his fellow prisoners and came to realize how important meaning is to human life.

Human beings are highly adaptable to circumstances, even when those circumstances involve extreme pain. Their ability to endure that pain hinges on their sense of meaning and purpose. I say it again, “He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.” Frankl developed a psychological method called “logotherapy” out of this insight, meaning that, in a therapeutic context, helping people develop an understanding of their purpose and their meaning provides the critical ingredient for happiness, even happiness in spite of pain.

For someone suffering from physical or mental health challenges, there is the immediate treatment or therapy they receive, but there is also the larger social context that shapes their ability to see meaning and value in their life in the midst of suffering. I think colleagues here will identify with the fact that, when someone in our family is suffering from mental health challenges, we seek to help them reduce or eliminate their pain, but we also seek to show them that their life has value and meaning in the midst of that pain.

The problem is that we now live in a society that increasingly misidentifies the meaning of life as being the avoidance of pain. We follow Bentham in thinking that happiness is simply the maximization of pleasure over pain, instead of appreciating the historically much more common insight that happiness consists in the life well lived and the life lived in accordance with meaning and purpose.

Today, many people think that there is no point in living if one suffers, whereas in the past it would have been universally accepted that a person can live a good, meaningful and even happy life that includes a measure of suffering and pain. If we, as a people, come to define meaning and happiness as the avoidance of pain, then we contribute to a loss of hope for people like my cousin. He can live a good life if he is able to believe that his life has value and meaning in spite of his pain. However, if he is made to believe that the good life consists solely in the avoidance of pain, then he must endure both the pain of the moment and the loss of perceived purpose and value. The combination of pain with a loss of purpose is likely always a cross too heavy to bear.

My uncle told me that his message to Gabriel was always “We'll get through this; we'll figure this out.” Gabriel's family sought to push back against the idea that an early death was inevitable for someone like Gabriel, showing him that a good life was possible and that obstacles could be overcome.

However, when legislators endorse medically facilitated suicide for those who are grappling with questions of purpose and meaning in the midst of great pain and suffering, we send them the message that their life is not worth living and we undermine their pursuit of meaning in the midst of that suffering. When doctors or when employees at Veterans Affairs Canada put suicide on the table as a way out, then they sharply send the message to the sufferer that maybe their life is not worth living or that early death is inevitable because of what they're going through.

Today, I would like to send a different message. I would like to say to the Gabriels of the world that they are loved, they are valued and their suffering and pain do not rob them of their essential human dignity or their ability to live out a noble purpose in the world. I want to send that message because it is true, but also because it is therapeutically useful, so that all those who are looking for meaning in their life can know that such meaning can be found even in the midst of pain. Notwithstanding the government's position, I hope that my statement today does send that message.

I know that the government's response to this is to suggest that there is some sharp moral and legal line between suicide on one hand and MAID on the other, with MAID or “medical assistance in dying” being the uniquely Canadian and politically manufactured term for when a medical professional intentionally kills a patient. Is MAID for a person with mental health challenges the same thing as suicide? Of course it is. The only difference is that the actual pulling of the trigger is done by someone else. It is suicide with an accomplice. Is MAID available to the suicidal? Either MAID is for those who want it or it is for those who do not want it. Assuming that MAID is still supposed to be only for those who request it, and since the term “suicidal” literally means “desiring suicide”, then MAID is for, and only for, those who are suicidal, by definition.

The minister responsible for mental health recently told the House, “All of the assessors and providers of MAID are purposely trained to eliminate people who are suicidal.” Perhaps her use of the term “eliminate” was a Freudian slip, but if she means that those who are suicidal are not eligible for MAID, then who in the world is eligible for MAID? Is it the non-suicidal? It becomes evident, when one provides simple definitions for the words being used, that so-called MAID is the same as medically facilitated suicide, and therefore that the policy of the government is to have the medical system offer to facilitate the suicide of those who are experiencing suicidality as a result of mental health challenges. Such an offer fundamentally changes the message that those suffering will receive from society about the meaning and value of their lives.

Specifically, the House is today debating Bill C-39, a bill that would extend the coming into force of this heinous reality for another year. I support Bill C-39, because I will support any measure that further delays the coming into force of this horror. Conservatives believe that this should be delayed indefinitely. In the meantime, we will vote for the legislation in front of us. Who knows? Perhaps the extra year will mean an election and a chance to euthanize this grievous and irremediable proposal once and for all.

Finally, I know that many members of the government share my opposition to the proposal, at least privately. I spoke earlier about the work of Viktor Frankl. In his work on logotherapy, he outlined how moral distress can be detrimental to a person's mental health. He tells the story of one patient who experienced great moral distress because of things he was asked to do at his job. His psychiatrist had for years been working with him on a complicated regimen that involved the re-evaluation of events in his childhood. Frankl himself told his patient to just get a new job, which solved the problem entirely.

To those experiencing moral distress, they should not over-complicate a simple matter. They will lose their sense of self and their own sense of meaning in life if they sacrifice their moral judgment to a fanatical justice minister. Please stand for what is right. For the Gabriels of the world, there is too much at stake.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for sharing the experience of his cousin. That took a lot of courage to do and I appreciate that.

The underlying concern that I have here is this. I know that this member and most Conservative members have been against any form of MAID legislation. They have voted against it every step of the way. I heard the member, a few seconds ago, talk about turning back the legislation on MAID if there is an election. Is he referring to just what we are talking about now, in terms of the mental health aspect of it, or is he talking about MAID in its entirety? It was something that was created out of a ruling of the Supreme Court.

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

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

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

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

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I may have asked the member this same question in a previous debate on this subject, so forgive me if I am repeating myself, but it revolves around this issue. One of the real concerns we all had with MAID, especially when it comes to people living with disabilities, is the fact that a lot of those people are not able to live in dignity right now. They do not have the resources or the funds to find affordable housing. They often do not have the funds to eat well. They cannot go out and get a job because of their disabilities. We, as Canadians, have a responsibility to provide that dignity.

I am just wondering if the member would say that this is a problem we should tackle right away, to make sure these people do not have that horrible decision in front of them.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree that we need to provide support to Canadians in all circumstances and that we need to do better to support Canadians living with disabilities. I would make one point in response to the member's question, which is that I believe human dignity is inherent. Dignity is not given by government; it is not given by circumstances. Dignity is inherent in the individual. It is incumbent upon us, at the core level, to recognize that inherent human dignity, that meaning that exists for all of us in spite of whatever challenging circumstances we may be experiencing, and for us as a society to treat people in a way that accords with and recognizes their inherent human dignity and allows them to live in ways that are fulfilling and meaningful in terms of their full potential.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I guess I am troubled by the trajectory of the MAID discussion and MAID legislation. I am glad Bill C-39 is here to delay this a bit more. The member talked about how he predicted the slippery slope. Where else could this go?

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

Madam Speaker, there was a proposal from the Quebec medical association to allow children to be euthanized. In particular, that proposal was for infants born with disabilities. It is horrifying to see that somebody, purportedly a doctor, would come before a parliamentary committee and actually advocate the killing of children on the basis of their having a disability, and that the same association would double down on it. If someone had told me 10 years ago that this would actually be happening in the Canadian Parliament, of all places, it is unbelievable just how far we have slid so quickly.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know how many times I have to rise to say the same thing, but my Conservative colleagues are oversimplifying. That is okay. They are entitled to do that, what with free speech and all. However, among the experts who drafted the expert report and who addressed the issue of mental health care, none of them supports the idea of giving access to medical assistance in dying to someone who is depressed. It is quite the contrary. The expert report includes all the necessary safeguards to exclude those people.

It is true that socio-economic determinants can lead to depression and suicidal ideation, but those people would not be granted medical assistance in dying. I invite my colleagues to read the report because I have noticed that there is a lack of understanding of the safeguards and precautionary principles underlying each of the recommendations. There are 16 very important recommendations in the expert report, and I invite my colleagues to read it.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is humorous because of the expert panel my colleague referenced. When it had finished all of its work and finished hearing from all of the witnesses, what did it actually say? It did not come up with one safeguard. The panel said to do this on a case-by-case basis, that we do need safeguards and to just go ahead with the legislation as it is. That was the expert panel.

There are no safeguards in place in Canada right now, none. That is why the government is asking for an extension of another year. However, even if there were safeguards in place, we have never had a debate in this House on the merits of including the mentally ill and mentally disordered within Canada's assisted suicide regime.

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

Madam Speaker, I remember being involved in the very first debates, and serious concerns were raised. What kinds of safeguards? What kinds of protections? We were told to pass it and then we would get a review. We never got that review.

What we got was the unelected, unaccountable Senate, whose members are responsible to nobody but themselves, deciding that what we needed to do was rewrite the law so that anyone who was depressed or had any kind of mental depression could be allowed to die. The government accepted that. It did not even throw it back. It accepted it, and we are one week away from this outrageous extension of MAID becoming law because it sat on the Liberals' desks.

Now we have to bring in a law that does not actually deal with that. We are just putting it off. We have never had a discussion as the elected representatives of the Canadian people to decide what is fair, what is right, how we do this and how we ensure safeguards. I would like to ask my hon. colleague about his position on this.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, not surprisingly, I totally agree with the member and his analysis of what has gone on. We have had the unelected, unaccountable senators plugging in a provision that has life-and-death consequences, and the government just rolled over when it came back to this place. That is an abdication.

The fact that there are no safeguards in place is of grave concern. However, once those safeguards are in place, we should fully expect that over time the government is going to chip away at them so that it can expand the scope of this legislation even more.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the member for Abbotsford for going forward with his private member's bill, Bill C-314. I have a question for him on veterans.

When veterans were phoning in for help on the helpline, MAID was called a benefit. Several veterans phoned our office in Saskatoon asking what the benefit of MAID was. They said when they phoned looking for assistance, they were told to go to the website; it's right on there that MAID is a benefit.

I would like the member for Abbotsford to talk about this, because at no time has it ever been a benefit for a veteran to accept MAID.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, when I look at the plight of our veterans, I know many of them suffer from PTSD. Can anyone imagine a veteran walking into an office and asking for help? They say they need mental health supports and are asking for help. They are begging the government and the response is, “I am sorry. Why not consider medically assisted dying?” That is not acceptable.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me mixed emotions to rise today in the House on this subject. Our hearts are full of stories. I do not think there is a family that has not been touched by those who have battled with mental illness in some form at some period in their lives. The mere thought that MAID could be extended to those battling mental illness is beyond disturbing.

I believe Canadians from coast to coast are in agreement that this is an extension that goes way too far. I rise today in this House as someone who will definitely support Bill C-39 to delay the extension of MAID to those with mental illness. With that pause and delay, I hope the government will take advantage of that time to finally put in place adequate safeguards to protect our most vulnerable.

It has been said that the character of a nation is revealed in how it treats its most vulnerable. Right now, the character of our nation is being tested. How will we respond to this time of testing? Will we rise to the occasion to help our fellow man, our fellow humans and our fellow neighbours and friends, who are battling and struggling? Will we respond to their anguish? Will we respond to their pain? Will we respond to the cries from many across this country right now who are under increased strain mentally?

Many are coping and trying to self-medicate. It has led to addictions in their lives and further mental health struggles. We are seeing a rise in depression, anxiety and other types of mental illnesses. It is moving across the country at a very rapid rate and to younger and younger Canadians. Our hearts are moved by this.

The importance of this delay cannot be overstated. Let us not just delay this for another year and then have to revisit it again and have this debate again. Let us move with urgency toward putting in the necessary safeguards to protect our most vulnerable. Canadians are demanding that we respond.

We have had many examples of the overreach and overextension of this. Veterans have been offered and advised to utilize medical assistance in dying. This is something that should never happen to those who are heroes and have served, and at a time of post-traumatic stress or in a season of anxiety and depression. We know that with adequate supports and proper care, they can traverse to the other side of the deep valley they may be in temporarily.

I have family and friends who have had these bouts. I have seen the effects of mental illness in very deep and profound ways. In my previous vocation, I rushed to a bridge where someone was on the edge considering taking the step of ending their life. I have been called to a dam in my area in the dead of winter to respond to someone who had reached their end.

This was some time ago, but I am very thankful to report to this House that both those individuals have moved on with their lives. They are living. They are enjoying their lives and have made some very positive changes. I am so thankful that in that moment they chose life. I am also very thankful that at that time, medical assistance in dying was not extended to those who were battling mental illness alone.

This House must put in the adequate safeguards that are needed. Experts are telling us very clearly that this should not be extended to those solely battling mental illness, because there is no way they can adequately determine if the mental illness is irremediable.

With that uncertainty, with those legitimate concerns coming from health professionals and the majority of doctors and physicians across the country, it would behoove this House not only to pass this bill and give the delay but also to take immediate steps to implement adequate safeguards that would protect our most vulnerable.

I pause for just a moment upon probably one of the most famous passages that has ever been quoted in times of stress and duress for many people. It is oftentimes featured in movies and at most funerals that we attend; it is a verse of great comfort:

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me.

Death casts a very big shadow, and those of us who have lost loved ones know that pain and grief very well. Those who have lost family members and loved ones to suicide know how dark and deep that shadow is.

However, there is hope that when we are traversing the very valley of the shadow of death, we can pass through and come out on the other side. There is hope for those who are battling mental illness, depression and anxiety; though it may feel permanent in the moment, there are many people who have traversed that valley and come out with hope and light again in their hearts and souls.

Primarily, it is because they came to the realization that they were not alone. They had loved ones who were with them, family who cared for them, neighbours who extended a hand and those who would run in when everyone else ran out of their lives. When it looked darkest, someone lit a candle in their night that brought hope.

I am thankful for those who brought light to me in the darkened times of my soul. I hope that everyone in this room will take the pause that this bill would grant the House, be a light in a darkened place for those who are hurting and extend the hope that is in the valley of the shadow of death. We do not have to fear, but we can walk with people through the most difficult of seasons in their lives.

Let us bring hope and life. Let us not encourage death or a culture of death but foster a culture of hope and life for those who most desperately need it.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague quoted one of his favourite sentences, and I would like to hear his comments on the following sentence: Perfection is the enemy of the good.

Are we not letting people suffer as a result of the constant desire to set limits and constraints? Is the Conservative Party not falling into a trap? Instead of protecting life, they are protecting suffering.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I believe that we are doing something very positive when we take the time to reflect on what has been brought into place through Bill C-7 and MAID and adequately address the ever-growing concerns of this legislation being abused or overextended to those dealing with mental illness alone.

We need to take this time, pass this bill and make sure that in the time it allots us, we put in place the safeguards that Canadians are demanding. These safeguards will make sure that veterans who are vulnerable and people with mental illness are protected and that those who are passing through a temporary season in life do not make a decision with such finality. We need to make sure we put the safeguards in place.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech this evening. I enjoy my time on the fisheries committee with him.

The member spoke at length about putting into place the necessary safeguards to protect those most vulnerable. I cannot agree more. I am hearing from people who are at their wits' end; for them, it feels easier to die at this point than to keep living. That is horrific. I have spoken about this before.

This bill needs to be put into place. I absolutely agree that we need to have the appropriate information to know how we can move forward and protect those most vulnerable. We also need to ensure that people have what they need to live with dignity and respect.

Could the member share with us whether he agrees that we need to put into place a guaranteed livable basic income, as well as ensuring that the government is offering mental health transfers?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to serve on the fisheries committee with my hon. colleague.

With regard to this matter, obviously the challenges of poverty, desperation, hurt and pain are evident throughout our country at this time. Many political parties of various stripes are going to come up with all kinds of potential solutions to that, but the bill that is before us for consideration today is about delaying the legislation to provide time for reflection and the ability to implement safeguards. Safeguards need to be implemented for people across the board, especially our vulnerable youth, seniors, veterans and all individuals who are dealing with mental challenges and the addictions epidemic that is plaguing this nation. We need to look at it holistically.

I do not believe government can solve all these problems. We must expand that circle of solutions to include those from all sectors of society, including our faith-based communities, as well as non-profits and other great NGOs that are doing tremendous work in our communities.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac gave a very heartfelt speech. He has followed this closely.

If all of us in this House remember, when this bill was originally put forward, it was supposed to be very narrowly cast. One of the trade-offs was that the government was going to be putting in supports for palliative care for mental health. Sadly, we have not seen those investments. Even the original justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, was not in support of extending this to people with mental illness.

The member mentioned at the beginning of his speech that sometimes countries have to make a decision on how they want to be perceived in their heart and soul. Why is it so important right now that we make a stand to not continue down this slippery slope? Canadians are going through a horrible time and need that support.

What does he recommend at this time in history?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, that is the value and the absolute purpose of the pause. This bill would enable a pause so that we can take immediate steps. Internationally, questions are being raised suggesting that we have gone to the extreme on this issue. It is time to put some adequate safeguards in place to make sure our most vulnerable are protected.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a true honour and privilege to stand here in the House of Commons to represent my beautiful community of Peterborough—Kawartha.

Today we are debating Bill C-39, an act to amend the Criminal Code in terms of medical assistance in dying, which I will refer to as MAID for the remainder of this speech, and extend the exclusion of persons living with mental illness from being eligible to receive MAID beyond March 17, 2023.

We are going to need to rewind a bit to paint a picture of how disturbing this legislation, conversation and ideology are. In December of 2021, without any consultation, study or discussion, the Senate added an amendment to Bill C-7 to make people with mental illness eligible for MAID. This is gravely concerning and indicative of the Liberal government's recklessness to add such a serious amendment, which targets the most vulnerable, without due diligence of study and consultation with experts.

Instead of recognizing the undemocratic and dangerous way the amendment was added and scrapping the entire thing, which should have been what happened, the Liberals' proposal is simply to extend the deadline with an arbitrary date.

The MAID special joint committee was created after the amendment was added. How backward is that? The committee heard testimony from many experts, including Dr. John Maher, clinical psychiatrist and medical ethicist, who said, “Psychiatrists don't know and can't know who will get better and live decades of good life. Brain diseases are not liver diseases.”

Of course, today I will support this bill, but let us call it what it is, which is window dressing for a much bigger ideological problem. We do not need to extend the timeline of this bill; we need to get rid of making those with mental illness eligible for MAID. We need to call out the Liberals for not providing a dime of their promised $4.5 billion to the Canada mental health transfer. We need to ensure people at home watching know we are working diligently to give them timely access to treatment and recovery when they are willing to get it. That is what we need to be doing.

I urge every member in this House to listen to their constituents and recognize how dangerous the message is that we are sending to those struggling. I encourage every member in this House to support Bill C-314, which was introduced last Friday by my colleague from Abbotsford and would solve this problem instead of prolonging and dragging out an amendment that should never have been put there in the first place.

It is difficult, if not impossible, in the case of mental illness to determine whether someone can recover, get better or get healthy. Therefore, one can appreciate how dangerous a bill like this is.

I am going to read into the record a letter that was recently sent to me.

It reads:

“Dear Michelle Ferreri,

“My name is Kayla. I am going to be sending this letter to several MPs, but as you are the MP presiding over the constituency where I reside, I thought I should send this to you first. I am very troubled by something that is going to be happening very soon in this country, and I hope you will listen to what I have to say.

“Overall, I am a very healthy individual. I have a mental health condition, but it is my sole medical condition. However, I was mortified to discover last month, that medical assistance in dying (MAID for short) will be available to people whose sole health condition is a mental health condition as of March 17, 2023.

“Persons who suffer from mental health conditions suffer horribly. I know that. I have suffered with mine for nearly 12 years. Perhaps the most appalling things of all are that ‘The law no longer requires a person's natural death to be reasonably foreseeable as an eligibility criterion for MAID,’ (Government of Canada, 2021) and ‘There is no obligation for a person or their health care practitioners to inform family members if that person has requested or received MAiD.’ (CAMH, 2022).

“I think you are an intelligent person, Michelle. I think you see this for what it is. As of March 17, 2023, I will be eligible to end my own life on the basis that I have an incurable mental illness. Let me give you a bit more background: I have two university degrees, in biology and environmental science. I have a job that I love and have held since a little while after I graduated. I have never failed to pay taxes, nor have I ever taken extended leave or gone on EI due to my mental illness, no matter how hard it gets. I have family and friends that I love dearly, and they love me too. And yet now my own government has deemed my life not worth living. This just isn't unfair. This is monstrous.

“But it gets worse. What about those people who are in the same boat that I am medically, but are much, much worse off. They cannot pay their taxes because they cannot work. They have a substance addiction. They are veterans with PTSD. They are homeless because they cannot seem to fight off their demons. These are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. To say nothing of the nature of the 'mature minors' (whatever on Earth that means) that will be able to access MAiD in the future if this doesn't stop.

“Make no mistake. This thing that we dress up with a nice name 'MAiD' is euthanasia of our most vulnerable people because they cannot 'contribute to society' like others can. The fact that the government would offer to get them out of the way (read: convince them that they should die) in this way, just because the systems that the government put in place are failing them is an unspeakable evil.

“I hope, Michelle, that you will do everything in your power as an MP, as I will do everything in my power as a citizen, to abolish this law. I understand the federal government is seeking to push back the timing of this law, likely because it has received so much criticism. I understand that it likely wasn't you that made any of the decisions for this law to go ahead. But I also understand that you are in more of a position to do something about it than many other people are. I hope you will respond after reading this letter.

“Sincerely,

“Kayla.”

I did talk to Kayla, and it was a heartbreaking conversation. She is living very well, and I would like to give Kayla a round of applause for being so brave as to share that. This letter says everything Canadians need to hear. We need to be sending a message of hope and recovery, not a message that their life does not matter.

I leave members with one final story. Elyse is a young university student and she chatted with me during the Christmas break. She said she needed to tell me something. She said she was so worried about this legislation to extend MAID to those with mental illness. She said that she had struggled with mental illness and knew with certainty that if someone had offered that to her during her times of illness, she would not be here today. She told me that she would not be getting her university degree; would not be in a happy, healthy relationship; and would not know that her life is worth living.

We have a duty in the House to bring hope and create legislation that provides a better life for Canadians. A better life means access to help when they need it. I urge every MP in the House to listen to the experts and Canadians, and not just extend an arbitrary deadline, but drop this dangerous and reckless legislation. To everyone at home watching, including families who are supporting those with mental illness and those who are living with mental illness, we see them. They are worth fighting for, and their lives are worth it.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, one thing I have been hearing this evening in some of our debates from my colleagues across the way is that we need to look at this to make sure we take the time to put in place the supports and infrastructure that will be required. That is exactly what this bill would do. It would take the time.

Is the member opposite in agreement with extending this one year so that we can take a look at it to ensure the supports are there and the infrastructure is there for medical assistance in dying?

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, no, they have to invest in what gives people hope. There is no research. The experts and the special joint committee have done the research. This is window dressing. This is an arbitrary timeline for something that is dangerous. There is no proof. There is no science. They cannot say with certainty whether somebody with mental illness will or will not get better.

Absolutely, we need to invest. There was $4.5 billion promised by the Liberal government to invest in the Canada mental health transfers. Not one dime has been sent. What are the Liberals saying to people at home who are struggling? They are saying that they care about them, but they are not going to invest in access to treatment. They are going to invest in legislation that allows them to apply for MAID. It is wrong.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, my friend, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, was absolutely right when she said that there is no science and no evidence to support this expansion. Indeed, the overwhelming evidence at the special joint committee, of which I am a co-vice-chair, was precisely the opposite.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne asked the member about whether it is appropriate to extend the deadline to essentially get it right, but evidence before the committee from a leading psychiatrist was that the medical error rate on the question of irremediability could be anywhere from 2% to 95%. In the face of that, it would seem to me that there are no safeguards to get this right. The only thing to do to get it right would be to scrap this ill-conceived—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has such a wealth of knowledge and facts on this legislation. Unlike the Liberals, he has done the due diligence. That is the reality. The facts speak for themselves.

At the special joint committee, there were numerous hours spent on this, and it was all done backward. Therefore, I absolutely agree with him and thank him so much for his intervention and his work on this file.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

When we hear these stories, it is difficult to be indifferent to the situation. However, it is always ironic to hear the Conservatives say that they base their rational decisions on science, when we clearly know the relationship they have had with science in the past few years.

My colleague stated that there is no proof and no science. However, the people currently asking for this to be postponed, the people who produced the final report of the panel of experts, who made 19 recommendations, are experts who are members of professional associations. They clearly used scientific evidence. These are people with expertise.

Does my colleague not agree? Does she not recognize the expertise of those people? That is the fundamental question being asked in the House this evening.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think we are saying the same thing repeatedly here. The experts have weighed in and said that we cannot, with certainty, scientifically predict whether or not someone will or will not recover from a mental illness.

If the member wants to take that risk, and risk playing Russian roulette, I guess that is his answer, but the data is already there, which we have seen repeatedly.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have been here before, with the Liberals scrambling to meet a deadline, unable to get their act together. In this case, though, perhaps the delay will provide us with the opportunity to get things right, or at least, that is my hope.

The question that we need to ask here is not whether there should be a delay in when medical assistance in dying is extended to the mentally ill, but whether such an expansion is a wise move at all.

Seven years ago, I stood in the House and predicted that we would be here today. On May 5, 2016, I said:

It does not take much talent to predict that in the aftermath of this legislation there will be confusion.

However, if killing patients becomes an option, for whatever supposedly good reason, how long will it be before that reason becomes more flexible than rigid? What about those with no family who are a drain on hospital resources? Would it not be in the financial best interests of society to end their lives?

How are we going to prevent families from pressuring their aged ones, urging them to request death so that the next generation of the family will be financially better off? There are so many issues that are still unresolved. We are acting in haste, and it seems to be almost guaranteed that we will get it wrong....

We might not be discussing this issue if we were doing a better job as a nation in assisting those approaching the end of their natural life. Where is the commitment of the government to increase funding for palliative care, which was an election promise unfulfilled in budget 2016?

I did not, at that time, address the issue of so-called assistance in dying for those who are mentally ill. I confess that, at that time, it never occurred to me that such an idea would be considered.

We were talking about those whose deaths were not only foreseen but imminent. The idea of hastening natural death was put forward as something compassionate, to ease the pain of those suffering from terminal illness.

How quickly times have changed. What was once unthinkable is now being promoted as normal, which may explain why, in October of last year, a representative of the Quebec college of physicians suggested that MAID be extended to infants under the age of one with serious health conditions. These children are obviously too young to make such a decision themselves.

It was somewhat reassuring to hear the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion say that she was shocked by the suggestion and found it unacceptable. It was less reassuring when the minister also said that she could not speak on behalf of the entire government on the issue, which means that I would not be surprised if, in the not-so-distant future, we are being asked to make yet another extension to the circumstances in which MAID is available.

According to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Canada's largest mental health teaching hospital and one of the world's leading research centres in the mental health field, in any given year, one in five Canadians experience a mental illness. That, to put it mildly, is a significant number. Furthermore, by the time Canadians reach 40 years of age, one in two, which is half the population, have or have had a mental illness.

We need to recognize what that means for our country. Mental illness is a serious problem, but addressing it by making assisted suicide an option is not the way to proceed.

Speaking to the CBC, the minister of disability said that she frequently hears that some people with disabilities are seeking assisted death because they cannot find adequate housing or sufficient care, that they are choosing death because of a lack of social supports.

Is that not also the case for those suffering from mental illness? The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health tells us that about 4,000 Canadians commit suicide each year, an average of almost 11 a day, people of all ages and backgrounds. Those numbers are sobering.

In Ontario, 4% of adults and 14% of high school students report having seriously contemplated suicide in the past year. More than 75% of suicides involve men, but women attempt suicide three to four times more often. More than half of suicides involve people aged 45 or older.

In Alberta, each year, according to the University of Alberta, one in six people will seriously think about suicide. There are an average of 2,400 hospital stays and more than 6,000 emergency room visits annually for self-inflicted injuries, the result of suicide attempts. More than 500 Albertans will die by suicide each year. According to Alberta Health Services, in 2018, 7,254 Albertans visited the emergency department for suicide attempts. Three out of four suicide deaths are male, about 50% being middle-aged men aged 40 to 64.

After accidents, suicide is the second leading cause of death for people aged 15 to 24. Indigenous people, especially youth, die by suicide at rates much higher than non-indigenous people. First nations youth aged 15 to 24 die by suicide about six times more often than non-indigenous youth. Suicide rates for Inuit youth are about 24 times the national average. This is a national tragedy.

Experts tell us that mental and physical health are linked, which means that people with long-term physical health conditions such as chronic pain are much more likely to also experience mood disorders. In the same way, people suffering from mood disorders are at much higher risk of developing a long-term medical condition.

What does it say about Canada as a society and Canadians as people that our response to mental illness is now going to be focusing on killing people rather than appropriate medical treatment? If we were doing a better job of supporting those who are mentally ill, we might not be having this discussion today.

Many of those suffering from mental illness in its various forms will tell us that there are good days and bad days. On the bad days, when the dark cloud descends and it feels like it will never lift, death seems a pleasant option, but for most people, it does lift. As I said earlier, about half the population will experience some form of mental illness at some point in their lives. For most, it is something they can overcome.

Making suicide easier by calling it “medical assistance in dying” will, I am certain, mean that people with treatable mental illness will choose death. Some may do so because they are having a low period and do not see any hope for the future. For others, it may be a lack of medical and social support to help them deal with their illness.

Mental illness in Canada is estimated to cost about $50 billion annually when we include health care costs, loss of productivity and a reduction in health-related quality of life. That cost could be reduced if we were to invest more in mental health promotion and illness prevention programs, more support for early intervention aimed at children and families, and more emphasis on treatment for depression and anxiety disorders.

We need to pass this legislation, because there is a deadline approaching. Even more, though, we need to look at how we support those who are suffering from mental illness. Killing them should not be an option.

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

Madam Speaker, in May 2019, every member of Parliament stood up and supported my motion, Motion No. 174, to establish a national suicide prevention action plan. There were a number of key steps that the government and members of all parties agreed to, including establishing national standards for training people involved in suicide prevention and making sure we were working with first nation, Métis and Inuit communities on establishing norms and proper funding, as well as the obligation to report to Parliament annually on preparations for and the implementation of the national action plan, including data.

That never happened. The government voted for it, and nothing happened. Yet, when the unelected, unaccountable Senate decided to throw in, at the last minute, a provision that would allow mental illness to be the sole reason to judge whether someone should be allowed to die or not, that was accepted without even a challenge, and now the government is scrambling at the last minute to prevent it from becoming law.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the lost opportunities the government has had to lay a proper course for the protection of people to make sure that we are doing things in a humane way and not having to act in such an ad hoc, eleventh-hour response to a very badly thought-out provision thrown in by the unelected, non-accountable Senate.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member's question speaks to the spirit of my speech and what I was trying to address here, the last-minute actions and the non-action on the government side when it comes to addressing even election promises. It has been dragging for the last eight years, and there is no action happening to support the palliative care promise the government also made.

We are on the same page here, to call for a stop in dealing with last-minute legislation that comes in and does nothing but delay. It is toxic. This is a poison that we could ask Canadians to take at some point, but it is not acceptable. It is our responsibility, on our shoulders, to address this and deal with it as we are representatives of the Canadian population.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the member for Edmonton Manning spoke about the need for more mental health supports.

Last week, we had an announcement with respect to health care, but nothing with respect to dedicated mental health funding. I asked the parliamentary secretary about this last week, whether the governing party remains committed to a $4.5-billion Canada mental health transfer.

Could the member speak about whether he, too, is calling for the need for the Canada mental health transfer?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, it was in our platform during the last election to address this. Mental health is a health issue. The two can never be separated. The strategy has to be wide and wise to be able to address all the issues, because health care is at the front of everything we do in this country. It seems that the government is missing the point on that.

We call on the government to act wisely and to act in the best interests of all Canadians by seriously looking at the mental health issue that we are facing.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are living in a time when Canadians have lost trust in our institutions, whether it is the government, whether it is media, whether it is even the medical profession. We need to rebuild that trust. Canadians need to believe in their country and what it stands for. This bill that we are passing, hopefully, would just delay a very bad idea.

Could my colleague comment on why we really have to stop and re-evaluate? He said in his speech that he never even thought this would go to mental health. The original justice minister who put this forward was against it. Why do we have to rebuild this trust? Why is it so important that we speak out against this?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, this issue is for everybody, for every politician in Canada and in this Parliament, to work together on. There is no way this should be swept under the rug. We can delay the poison pill that we could give to Canadians—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Provencher.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank all my colleagues who have spoken so eloquently here these past many hours.

It will come as no surprise to my colleagues that I am opposed to medical assistance in dying and also opposed to any expansion thereof, but I will be voting in favour of Bill C-39, because what it would do is delay the imminent move the Liberal government wants to make, which is to extend MAID to those with mental illnesses.

When MAID first came to this House and was presented by the Liberal government, I was on the justice committee, and I, early on, warned this House that MAID was going to be a slippery slope, that “reasonably foreseeable” would not remain the standard by which MAID cases would be adjudicated, and that the legislation would also pose a serious threat to those with disabilities, the elderly, the poor and particularly those with mental health issues.

In August of last year, the Associated Press and the National Post both published reports on what has been happening in Canada's hospitals since the Liberal government introduced one of the most permissive assisted suicide regimes in the world. The results are alarming. In an interview, Tim Stainton, director of UBC's Canadian Institute for Inclusion and Citizenship and one of our leading experts on the subject, called MAID “the biggest existential threat to disabled people since the Nazis' program in Germany in the 1930s.”

A follow-up article in Forbes magazine written by journalist Gus Alexiou, who himself suffers from multiple sclerosis, states, “unfettered accessibility [to MAID] could...prove to be one of the most malignant forces the disability community [including those with mental disability or illness] has had to contend with since the 'mercy killings' of the Third Reich almost nine decades ago.”

This is because their reporting discovered that the people who are being targeted for MAID, and I do not think “targeted” is too wrong a word to use, are the most vulnerable Canadians: those who are disabled, seniors, those living in poverty and those with a mental illness.

Their story begins with Alan from B.C., who suffered from severe depression. He was administered MAID shortly after being taken to the hospital for a psychotic episode. His family begged the doctors not to kill him, as he had been involuntarily admitted and was in the throes of a psychotic episode when he demanded MAID. The family's pleas were ignored, and Alan was dead shortly thereafter. As Dr. Mark Komrad, a psychologist at John Hopkins Hospital, accurately predicted, our law “will provide, not prevent, suicide for some psychiatric patients.” Alan's death was not a reasonably foreseeable death. He was killed because he had a mental health condition.

Then, there was a disturbing incident where a Veterans Affairs agent casually offered MAID to a veteran with PTSD and a traumatic brain injury, something they had no business doing. To its credit, the government dealt with that employee, and I commend it for that, as I commend it for taking this pause on MAID expansion. I was in government, and I know how hard it is to walk back on things. It takes courage to do that, so I am glad the government has seen fit to do so. However, it turns out this one veteran incident was not an isolated incident; it was one of six incidents, that we know of, where it was suggested that veterans should consider assisted death.

Moreover, let us be clear about what we are talking about, because as I listened to the justice minister and read some of what has been put into print, it does not sound like he is convinced that those with mental illness should not receive MAID. It just sounds like he was not ready to go.

CBC, on February 2 of this year, quoted him as saying:

COVID slowed everything down. To be honest, we could have gone forward with the original date, but we want to be sure, we want to be safe, we want everyone to be on the same page.

We want, in particular, those health practitioners, those faculties of medicine, colleges who had some concerns to have the time to internalize what is happening.

Let me read that sentence again: “We want, in particular, those health practitioners, those faculties of medicine, colleges who had some concerns to have time to internalize what is happening.” That does not sound like an about-face to me. It sounds like the minister and the government still have every intention of moving forward with this.

According the National Post, a 2021 report by the UN “warned that Canada's liberalization of euthanasia posed a dire threats to its elderly and [infirm] populations.” That threat certainly includes those suffering with mental illness. The report said, “There is a grave concern that, if assisted dying is made available for all persons with a health condition or impairment [including mental health]...a social assumption might follow...that it is better to be dead than to live with a disability.” Given what we have seen to date, that certainly appears to be the case.

Just a little less than a year ago, last February, I received an email from a constituent. She is not my constituent but a constituent of a Liberal member of Parliament. It was sent to several MPs. I would like to read it into the record. It comes from a woman by the name of Melissa, and this is what she said:

...I was the farthest thing from a being a productive member of society. 15 years ago I was struggling really badly. I had entered into my second year of grade 10, which was due to a mental health diagnosis. I was diagnosed with PTSD, a personality disorder, major depression, and I had anxiety and was on a bunch of antipsychotics. I was in and out of crisis stabilization units, psych wards and a couple years later I got kicked out [of] a safe home for youth. I got kicked out of school and home because I was overdosing on the prescription medication and was self mutilating. I was a lost cause and didn't want [to] live and suicide was the only way out from all this pain......or so I thought.

She continued:

...it would have made me a prime candidate for MAiD, since my condition was nearly impossible to overcome apart from a miracle. I was a burden on my family, the medical system, the education system, and on top of it had chronic stomach issues and back pain which I would frequent the hospitals for. If I had an open door to access MAiD, that would have been something I would have seriously considered and would not be here to tell you about my story.

There are so many young teens that, like myself grow up in broken homes and get stuck in hopelessness and despair, and there are others who have everything they could ever want, yet still suffer from issues affecting their mental and physical health. Not everyone overcomes and it gets carried into their adult life, which makes them eligible for Medical Assistance in Dying.

She went on to say:

When you make the choice to go through with MAiD you no longer have an opportunity to go back and reconsider your decision. I know people suffer, and life can be tough and there are moments that seem unbearable. But there is Hope!!!! I've been there before. I suffered for over 10 years, I started on antidepressants by the age of 12, and by [the] middle of high school I had lost my mind and just wanted to end it.

Yet taking life is a very serious matter. I met Jesus who became my hope, I know that the name of Jesus has been frequently misrepresented but, the Jesus I met truly takes away needless pain and suffering.

Then she addressed her Liberal member of Parliament and asked him to reconsider his support for this particular bill.

Sadly, this is happening in Canada at the same time as we are facing a growing and serious health care crisis that has been exacerbated by years of COVID, restrictions and delays. Millions of Canadians are unable to access primary care, and wait times for doctors, appointments, surgeries, mental health support and emergency room visits are among the longest in the developed world.

Since it was expanded, MAID has seen a dramatic upswing, exacerbated by COVID-19 and the inability of too many Canadians to access timely and proper health care, including a lack of mental health supports. In fact, in an Angus Reid survey that just came out today, 55% of Canadians are worried that the expansion of MAID will become a substitute for social services.

An ER doctor recently told my office that prior to COVID, mental health cases accounted for one in every seven ER visits. Post-COVID and post-restrictions, that number is one in three. According research in the National Post, 2020 saw a 17% increase in MAID deaths over 2019 that disproportionately involved the elderly. I see no reason why we will not see an even more significant jump if MAID legislation is permanently expanded to include mental illness.

I recognize there are many for whom every day is a struggle and for whom mental health and physical health issues are debilitating. I will not begin to pretend that I know what it is like, and I want to be sensitive to that, but I believe that every human life, whatever the contents and challenges of that life may be, holds an innate and sacred dignity. Only God can give life and only God should be able to take life. It is my deeply held conviction that from conception to natural death, life is a precious gift.

It is the role of government to seek the best for all its citizens. We must adopt policies that embrace that gift, policies that uphold life and reinforce the value of every citizen. As Pope Francis put it during his recent Canadian tour, “We need to learn how to listen to the pain...of patients who, in place of affection, are administered death.”

We need to be there for the elderly, the infirm, the disabled. We need to be there for those who are suffering from mental illness, not offering the needle—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have been quite generous with the time I have given the hon. member. We have gone way beyond it.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, in light of this important bill, there is a need to push it to a place where the government and members of this House have an opportunity to hear more. We need to ensure that those who are desperate, in need and seeking the kind of support that mental health supports can provide them actually have those resources and can get them without seeking MAID. I support the member in his call for that.

However, I also support the need to ensure that those who are furthest behind and need support get that support through the mental health transfer or other means, like a guaranteed livable basic income. That is an important piece to this.

Can the member elaborate on the need to ensure that we support those who are living in poverty with real tools and solutions so they can live with dignity?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, absolutely we need to support individuals. We know that in the recent health care proposal from the federal government to the premiers of the provinces, there was no mention of mental health care support. That is very unfortunate. The Liberals had a wonderful opportunity to expand on and incorporate it into the funding they were providing to the territories and provinces and they chose not to do that.

In addition, with respect to providing supports for folks suffering from a mental health crisis, we know that the cost of living has become a huge burden for individuals and has intensified their feelings of hopelessness and exasperation. Under the Liberal government, we have seen the cost of living increase significantly, and we are going to see it increase more with its proposals for additional taxes.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the last answer, and I have a question on it. We have heard in many speeches today by the opposition that it is all about supporting people, yet every time our government has provided supports, whether it was the one-time income support or assistance for housing, the members opposite have voted against those initiatives. I am not certain how they can have it both ways by suggesting that we need to be there for people in their time of need.

Why do opposition members continue to vote against the initiatives put forward by the government that are helping the very people they are referencing in their speeches today?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for that really good question.

On the surface, it might appear as though we are not supporting the people he made reference to, who need the help I spoke about in my speech. However, that is not the case. What we want to do is give people their freedom back, like the freedom to make choices, which the Liberal-NDP coalition has taken away from them. We want to give people back the freedom to pay for gas and buy the food they require for their children, rather than relying on food banks and skipping meals. We want to give people their lives and their freedom back, which would be a huge asset to their mental health. That is why we as Conservatives have been opposing the reckless spending of the Liberal government.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, in the opening part of his speech, my colleague said that he would be voting in favour of extending the deadline by another year. Is he optimistic that in that one year the government will be able to develop regulations, safeguards and guidelines to assist the medical profession in the responsible application of medical assistance in dying?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I partially answered that question in my speech. I am voting in favour of Bill C-39, which will provide for an extension of one year. I think the government needs to sit back, take a pause and listen to what the experts and Canadians are saying. Is this legislation they really want? Is it something we should move forward with?

I hope the government takes the time to reflect on this. Based on the comments the Minister of Justice has made in this House and in the media, I am not optimistic that he is going to do that. I think for him this is a one-year delay of his plan of implementation to provide MAID to people who are suffering with mental illness. I hope he takes the time, together with his party, to re-evaluate moving ahead with this legislation. In fact, I hope they stop it, because it is wrong.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is something very broken in Canada today. I could talk about inflation being at 40-year highs. I could talk about interest rate hikes in the last 12 months that are doubling the average mortgage payments and making residential rental rates out of reach for many workers in Canadian cities that need workers. I could talk about the housing affordability crisis and I could talk about crime. We have talked about these things.

We are now learning in recent polls that two-thirds of Canadians feel that Canada is in fact broken. One of the pillars of our society they feel is broken is our health care system. Canadians used to be proud of our universal, world-class, leading-edge health care system. Now people wait for hours for emergency care and months for specialist appointments.

This does not line up with the view that we as Canadians have of ourselves as a prosperous nation. There is indeed something broken, and nowhere is this more evident than in our mental health care arena.

We are in the midst of a serious opioid crisis right across this country, and certainly in British Columbia, my home province. Decriminalization, safe supply and anti-stigma campaigns have had, at best, very little positive effect. At worst, they have contributed to the skyrocketing number of opioid deaths in the last eight years. Clearly, what the government has been doing has not been working.

It is in this environment that we are now, as parliamentarians, talking about whether MAID, medical assistance in dying, should be made available to those whose only underlying health condition is a mental illness. Indeed, there is something broken.

There was a time when those suffering a mental illness got the help they needed. I want to note an editorial that ran in last weekend's Vancouver Sun by editorial writer Douglas Todd. He writes often but not often about himself or his family. This is a very personal story.

When Mr. Todd was a young man, his father Harold, a World War II vet, was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He spent many stable years in metro Vancouver's Riverview Hospital, where he received three meals a day, where he was kept safe and where nurses administered and monitored his medications. He was stable. Riverview was not perfect but it kept Harold off the streets.

Harold died 23 years ago, according to the story, right around the time that the provincial government started taking the view that hospitals and boarding houses for the mentally ill were inhumane and paternalistic, and that patients with mental illness should not be out of sight, out of mind, but should be allowed to live in a community. These facilities have been largely wound down and replaced with nothing, which has led to disaster.

The younger Todd noted that last year alone, 2,272 British Columbia residents died of toxic street drugs. He says this: “If my dad had not had stable housing, he would have been vulnerable to such a fate.” That is where mental health is in Canada in 2023.

That brings me now to the question of recovery and the incurability of mental health issues. A number of my colleagues have spoken about that.

A member of my community shared with me a chilling story of how her daughter struggled with her mental health years ago. Through a proverbial turn of events, she happened upon a hospital during a serious bout of suicidality. My constituent is confident that if her daughter had been offered MAID in the hospital that day, she would have agreed to it. Instead, she found hope for a better tomorrow and access to real support. She has now recovered and is living a full life as a wife, mother and member of our community.

This question of possible recovery is one that experts disagree on. What constitutes irremediability for mental illness? When is a mental illness incurable and how do we discern that? Our special joint parliamentary committee on MAID looked into these very troubling questions. One witness shared that he likely would have chosen MAID in his darkest days but now has a rich life with successful medication and therapy.

Dr. Vrakas gave the opinion that for people struggling with mental illness, offering MAID to them is a “clear signal of disengagement from mental illness”.

Dr. Sareen from the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry said in December 2022 to the committee that, “We're in the middle of an opioid epidemic. And we're in the middle of a mental health pandemic. Post-COVID, wait times for access to treatment are the highest ever.”

We cannot pretend that patients have a free choice between MAID and treatment when treatment is simply not accessible.

However, no consensus has been reached about such pivotal questions as: can this person be cured? There is a huge risk in assuming that they cannot. The reality is, providing MAID to a person suffering from mental illness is an irreversible reaction to a condition that we do not know is incurable.

Dr. Maher summed this up perfectly in his testimony to the committee when said, “The rallying cry is autonomy at all costs, but the inescapable cost is people dying who would get better. What number of mistaken guesses is acceptable to you?”

Dr. Mishara added that he has personally known countless people who have “convincingly explained that they wanted to die to end their suffering and are now thankful to be alive. If you proceed to allow MAID for persons with a mental illness, how many people who would later have been happy to be alive are you willing to allow to die?”

There are, of course, experts on the other side of the debate who assure us that we can discern between people who apply for MAID and people who suffer from suicidal ideation; experts who believe that, when a person is depressed and can see no brighter future, we should not try to change their mind by offering care, medication and therapy.

However, I am confident that this lack of consensus alone should be enough to definitively say no, that expanding MAID to those whose only underlying condition is mental health is not a responsible public policy choice. Instead, let us fix our health care system. Let us see this government deliver on its forgotten promise to fund mental health. Let us open or reopen our assisted living homes for people suffering from mental illness. Let us take care of our mentally ill people. Let us give hope for a better tomorrow and the support needed to live through today.

The very narrow question that we are addressing today is whether we will vote in favour of a bill that would extend the deadline. The government has a two-year deadline. That time has come and gone. I think March 17 is the deadline, which will soon be upon us. Do we give ourselves another year to develop the guidelines, regulations and safeguards to make sure that MAID for mentally ill patients is administered in as responsible a manner as possible?

To be honest, I am torn on this. I voted against MAID in the first place, but like my colleague, I will be voting in favour of this, because I am optimistic that we can at least come up with regulations that will put safeguards in place to manage this very troubling public policy question.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, my question is on a topic that the member did not really speak to, but he is from British Columbia and is aware of the huge indigenous population in British Columbia.

Does the member agree that there need to be provisions or regulations added to make sure that indigenous peoples are protected better, especially in the mental health care system, which does not recognize broadly enough their culture and the need for reconciliation? Mental health services need to be unique and more tailored for indigenous peoples. I wonder if the member can share his thoughts on that.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes indeed I would completely support the government doing whatever is necessary to make sure that indigenous people, and indeed all Canadians, receive the mental health care that they need.

I gave the example of Mr. Todd's father, which I think is just a great example of where Canada used to do this much better, but for some ideological reason, we have abandoned that. It is a disaster.

I am very sensitive to the fact that indigenous people are disproportionately represented in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. People suffering with their mental health need to have the care that is necessary for them to recover. Additionally, I have worked with the Kwantlen First Nation community in my riding to help them develop culturally sensitive seniors housing, seniors care, because I recognize that is absolutely necessary.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, just over a year ago we had an election campaign, and in the Liberal platform there was nothing about the extension of medical assistance in dying for people with mental illness. What there was in the Liberal platform was a very clear promise to fund a Canada mental health transfer, $4.5 billion over five years, of which it is very clearly laid out, and I think it is on page 75 in the costing document, that by now almost $1 billion was to have been transferred already. We have not seen a cent of that almost $1 billion that was to have been transferred.

I wonder if the hon. member could speak to that disconnect that has a Liberal government that is not fulfilling its own promise to properly fund mental health but instead has moved forward and now is needing to pause, having moved forward on extending medical assistance in dying to people with mental illness.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, indeed Canadians are disappointed the government has failed to deliver on its promise to fund mental health to the extent that it is necessary, and they are doubly disappointed now the government is now talking about expanding medical assistance in dying for mentally ill people. They need help; they do not need assistance in dying.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I asked my Conservative colleague, who spoke just prior to this colleague of mine, the same question I will ask him. It is in relation to trying to deter one of the main contributors to the mental health crisis in Canada, and his colleagues have mentioned this all day, which is poverty.

New Democrats have tabled a solution, which is a guaranteed livable basic income. I understand the Conservatives might disagree with that, but what solutions can the Conservative Party offer, and not criticisms but solutions, to ensure those who are most vulnerable, those living in poverty and those who do not have the means to survive actually have that support so they can live with dignity?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, what is not the solution is to allow mentally ill people to live in tent cities or in squalor in some of the single-room occupancy hotels in the Downtown Eastside. This is terrible. The government is funding those homes, but it is inadequate. It is just slightly better than living in a tent. I completely agree that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We need to resume debate.

The hon. member for Fundy Royal has the floor.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today to an important bill.

We have to ask ourselves: why are we here this evening debating Bill C-39? What brought us to this place?

What brought us to this place was a government, once again, that had acted completely irresponsibly and with great overreach, ignoring the experts, ignoring Parliament and ignoring the most vulnerable.

We will back up a little bit. Bill C-7, which expanded medical assistance in dying in this country, went through the House of Commons and went through our committee, the justice committee.

Accompanying any piece of government legislation is a charter statement from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. A charter statement is the government's certification that the legislation complies with our Canadian Charter of Rights.

I want to read, just briefly, from that charter statement. The minister's charter statement stated, for Bill C-7, that it excluded individuals with mental illness from eligibility to access MAID, because of:

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, in relation to persons who suffer from a mental illness serious enough to ground a request for MAID.

At the time, the minister said that there was not the public support nor was the infrastructure in place to allow medical assistance in dying for individuals whose sole underlying condition is mental illness.

The bill, Bill C-7, then goes to the Senate, the unelected Senate. The Senate amends the bill to include mental illness with no safeguards, no accounting for the fact that it was an extreme broadening of Canada's MAID legislation and would, in fact, lead Canada to become an outlier.

That bill came back to the House and was passed by the government, with the opposition from our Conservative caucus members. Conservative parliamentarians were strongly opposed, because we knew that MAID should not be expanded to those who are suffering with mental illness.

When we are reaching out to those who are struggling, for example through Bell Let's Talk, and I see members of Parliament posting that on their social media, the terrible message that it sends is that we as a Parliament think that, for those suffering with mental illness, offering them death should be an option.

One may say, well, that is not what this is about. Unfortunately, that is exactly what it is about. It is already happening. Many of us were horrified to hear of bureaucrats from the Canadian government in a department to which we entrust vulnerable veterans, veterans suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder. Can one imagine the family of a veteran who goes to Veterans Affairs for help and, without even mentioning the issue, is offered the opportunity to explore medical assistance in dying, when they are suffering from PTSD?

Imagine how that would make one feel, for someone who is struggling and who is trying to stay motivated to stay alive. The Minister of Veterans Affairs said that this was a one-off, that this was just one problematic situation.

Unfortunately, we found out that it was not a one-off and that it had happened many times, an untold number of times. We do not know how many times it happened. This is before medical assistance in dying is officially expanded to those suffering with mental illness.

Why are we here today? We are here because the Minister of Justice supported this and pushed this forward in spite of, we know, the Liberal caucus members who are very uncomfortable with this, because they know it is wrong.

Just today, we read an article saying that only three in 10 Canadians support the idea of allowing patients to seek MAID based purely on mental illness. Seven in 10 Canadians, the constituents that these Liberal caucus members represent, do not support this going forward.

The Minister of Justice said, in the same article, “To be honest, we could have gone forward with the original date, but we want to be sure. We want to be safe. We want everybody to be on the same page.”

The government is saying that it needs everyone to think like it does and that everyone needs to warm up to the idea. We do not accept that. We are going to continue to fight for the most vulnerable. This is happening right now in Canada. It is very upsetting for many of us.

Then we read, in the same article, of a report that noted that an Ontario man recently made news after he requested MAID, not because he wanted to die, but because he thought it was a preferable alternative to being homeless. A disabled Ontario woman also applied for MAID after seven years of applying for affordable housing in Toronto with no luck.

The abuse of this system is happening in real time. It is happening now. Because of the passage of the amended Bill C-7, we were set for next month to have, without any safeguards, those suffering from mental illness be eligible for MAID. Bill C-39 is the government's attempt to kick this down the road another year.

Where have we seen these U-turns? We saw them with Bill C-75 on bail changes. The government overstepped, and now it is reversing course. On the gun legislation, the government realized there was a big overreach, and now it is time to climb down from that.

Canadians suffering with mental illness deserve better. They deserve a thoughtful approach. I stood in the House not long ago, back in October 2020, and Parliament was observing mental health week. Unfortunately, at that time, parliamentarians did not know that the Liberal government would soon include mental illness in its planned expansion.

The point in that speech was that one of the key foundations of Canadian society, in our collective identity, is that we are a caring and compassionate country. Canadians, many in this chamber, do not see anything caring or compassionate about making people who are living with mental illness eligible for medically assisted death.

What message does it send to Canadians who live with mental illness? They are not people who are at the end of their lives. These are not people who would otherwise die. Why is the Liberal government pushing to include them in its medical assistance in dying regime?

The president of the Canadian Medical Association said, “We have a responsibility, we believe, as physicians and as society, to make sure that all vulnerable Canadians have access to proper care and the support they need.” I listed two scenarios, and we all have these scenarios in our ridings of individuals in need who are not getting the help they need.

If we have not succeeded to make sure that every Canadian living with mental illness has access to timely mental health care or adequate support, how is it that the government and the minister were comfortable in proceeding with broadening medical assistance in dying in such a radical way to take effect next month? All this despite the fact that this radical expansion of MAID was passed in early 2021. Conservatives have not given up the fight to do what is right and to protect vulnerable Canadians. We will not give up that fight.

The government failed to conduct a mandatory review of its own MAID legislation. That was supposed to happen, and it did not happen. The minister was to complete a charter statement. He did that on Bill C-7. The Bill C-7 charter statement very clearly rationalized why individuals suffering with mental illness were not included in Bill C-7. That is how they arrived at the constitutionality of the bill.

With this massive change, we do not see the updated charter statement. We do not hear the minister talking about the charter rights of those who are suffering. This is remarkable because the statement was written over two years ago.

A few days ago, more than 25 legal experts signed a letter addressed to the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet, challenging them to do better on this.

This expansion is wrong. Conservatives will support extending the coming into force by this year, but in that time, we will not give up the fight to protect the most vulnerable.

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

Madam Speaker, the government has said that its approach is to try to eliminate from consideration those who are suicidal. In other words, those who are suicidal cannot have MAID, but those who are not suicidal can have MAID.

On the face of it, this does not make any sense, because by definition a person who is seeking suicide, facilitated through the medical system, is suicidal. The government is trying to make distinctions between concepts where no real distinctions exist.

The reality of the government's policy is that people who are experiencing suicidal thoughts and mental health challenges will be able to go to the medical system, and they will be facilitated in that by the medical system.

Would the member have a comment on the wordplay, the misrepresentation being used by the government to mask what is truly going to be the reality under its program?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. If it were not such a serious issue, it would be laughable to suggest that those who are suicidal would not be eligible for assisted suicide. It makes no sense.

The medical assistance in dying expansion to include those who are suffering mental illness makes Canada an international outlier. Liberal members understand that, and that is why, internally, they are having such great discomfort.

Conservatives have to continue, and all parliamentarians should continue, the fight to support those who are suffering with mental illness to make sure that Canadians have the supports they need, and to ensure that no government is offering medical assistance in dying to someone suffering with mental illness.

My hon. colleague is quite right in pointing out how ludicrous the position is that the Liberals are putting forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wholeheartedly in support of the delay of expanding MAID for those who have mental disorders as the sole underlying condition.

We know that people deserve to have access to mental health supports, a home and food on the table. However, the Liberals have yet to transfer a dime of the mental health transfer to provinces and territories. To make matters worse, people do not have access to the basics to meet their basic needs.

I am wondering if the member could share what he is hearing from constituents in his riding about the benefits they would have with access to affordable housing, a guaranteed livable basic income, and the mental health supports that they need.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, the member is quite right. In such a void that exists right now in the supports that people need, the last thing that a government should be offering by way of help is medical assistance in dying.

In my speech, I shared a couple of stories, but these stories are repeated across the country and in many of our ridings. I think we should all be shocked by them. Someone who cannot afford housing is now seeking MAID. We have heard of people going to food banks looking for food and also asking about MAID. We hear of government employees, bureaucrats within the Department of Veterans Affairs offering individuals who are suffering with PTSD the opportunity for MAID.

We have to ensure that we are supporting our fellow Canadians, not offering them assisted dying.

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

Madam Speaker, given the circumstances that, if we do not pass this bill, the provisions that were included in Bill C-7 will automatically come into force, I assume the member will be voting for Bill C-39.

What steps would he and his party want to see taken before March 2024 to ensure that adequate mental health supports are provided to all Canadians?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, the minister seems to be of the opinion that, if we just let people warm up to the idea, it will somehow become a good idea.

What I am saying is that this is not something that should be offered to Canadians this year, next year or the year after that. Offering medical assistance in dying to someone who is suffering with mental illness is not the right move forward. The member is quite right in saying there are rules within Bill C-7 that certainly do not contemplate this massive expansion, rules that apply to someone who is near death or has a reasonable foreseeability of death. Those rules are not made to apply to someone who is suffering with mental illness.

I would argue that all of us in this place should agree to do better and to fight, hand in hand, for those who are suffering with mental illness.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the chamber. We have been discussing very profound issues today, perhaps some of the most profound issues we can ever discuss in Parliament, which are life and death. We are discussing the deaths of loved ones and the deaths of those who have no one to love them, yet this is all happening in the context of Bill C-39, which absolutely fails the test of profundity because it is a last-minute scramble. It is a papering over of an absolute failure to deal with something that should have been dealt with from the beginning, and the government continues to drop the ball, so I am going to speak a bit on how we got here.

It is really important in this debate to be careful with the language we use and to be careful with each other. I have heard it alluded to that this was some kind of Nazi regime, which is ridiculous. I have heard people talk about being loved and other people saying that we are not respecting rights. We are talking about the most intimate acts that a human experiences: birth and death.

It may sound odd to say that death is an intimate act. Death can be very traumatic. Death can be violent. Death can really tear families apart, but it can also bring families together. It is those moments of how we confront death and value death that really show who we are as a society. I am thinking right now of my sister Kathleen, who never made it out of her 50s. This week would have been her birthday. Nobody got a rawer deal in life than my sister. She got the bad end of the cards dealt to her every single time, and Doc Holliday had nothing on her when it came to facing down death.

I remember, as she was dying, that every morning she insisted that she look good, and her back was disintegrating from the cancer. One of us got the nerve to ask her about MAID. Man, she almost bit our heads off because that will to live, the will to be there one more day through the pain, was very, very profound.

I remember we sent her off singing Danny Boy because that is how we say goodbye. That is how we said goodbye to her husband when he died just before her, and to my dad and to my grandfather. Those are intimate moments. However, her death, and a natural death it was, was not somehow superior to those of people who have chosen MAID.

I think of my friend Liz from Vancouver Island. Wow, she was a force. She called me and said, “I can't live with the pain anymore and I'm choosing the date.” I spoke to her the day before she went. I had a sense that this was also a very profound moment.

I think of my friend Craig from CBC. I followed his last two weeks on Facebook because he posted every day. It was a very powerful thing to see someone choose that moment and choose how they were going to tell their story in those final two weeks.

We have to respect the choices that people make. The provision for MAID that was brought in was about ensuring that a fundamental respect was given. However, the flaw goes back to the fact that we are not just individuals. We are not just individuals with rights. We are brothers, fathers, uncles, sisters, aunts. We have come from family, and family is part of it because death without family is traumatic. That is a tearing apart.

We come from communities and a death in our community can be traumatic if we are not part of it. We come from neighbourhoods. I think of my father when he died, and he lived up in a townhouse project in north Scarborough. The neighbours were coming all hours of the day and night. They were Sri Lankan, Italian and South Asian families who could not speak English but who would say, “We brought food for Mr. John”, because he was part of the neighbourhood.

Those moments of death are about our involvement with each other, and what concerns me with the changes that have been suggested to MAID, is that it is about separating those who are vulnerable, those who are isolated and those with mental distress from the larger community, which needs to hold them and care for them. We as legislators cannot just say that it is an individual choice. This is a societal choice we are making, and we are making it now on behalf of very vulnerable people who need our back.

We cannot just say, “They are depressed. They have always been depressed. It is their right. They are individuals.” That is a failure of our obligation to be there as a neighbourhood, as a community, as a family to hold them and to get them through the darkness.

How did we get here? There is a lot of blame, enough to go around. We knew that the issue of medical assistance in dying was fundamentally an issue that Parliament had to confront. This was our job as legislators. It was a hard job, but it was our job. The Stephen Harper government just decided to ignore it. It did nothing on this, even though we all knew it was coming.

Then the Carter decision came down. The Supreme Court stepped in. I think it was a failure for the court to step in and do the job parliamentarians should have done. What it did was put a timeline, because it said it did not have faith in Parliament. I think it was also a mistake that the Supreme Court put such a short timeline, because these were profound decisions we were making.

Then, the original bill passed. I had a lot of questions about that bill. I had real concerns about what the protections were and how it would be implemented. When we talk about someone whose death is foreseeable, who is suffering from pain they cannot deal with it, how do we make sure that the legislation is not opening the door to something much broader? We were told at the time as parliamentarians to vote for the legislation and that we would have a review. I trusted that. I thought it was fair. I had a lot of questions, but I recognized there were legal obligations. We had the Supreme Court's ruling and Parliament would have a chance to look at this. We were never given that opportunity. Parliament was never given the right to see the effects of the legislation we brought in.

Then the Truchon decision came in, where a Quebec court said that, with the charter provisions, limiting it to a foreseeable death was not fair and we had to throw the legislation out. That was a time when I think it would have been reasonable for the federal government to bring that to the Supreme Court and ask for a review. It did not do that. It accepted it. I think of how many decisions went in favour of indigenous communities and the government went all the way to the Supreme Court every single time, but on the Truchon decision it did not. That was another opportunity for it to say that the legislation was being expanded, perhaps for good, perhaps for bad, and that it needed to be reviewed. Still, Parliament did not get the chance to do the review.

Then it went to the Senate, of all places, the unelected, unaccountable Senate. These are people who cannot be fired once they hired. They can do whatever they want. They can show up or not show up. They sent us back a bill that said they wanted Parliament, the elected members, to approve their change, which was that if people are depressed they should be able to die.

The government should have rejected that bill outright. It should have told the senators that, number one, they are not elected, not accountable, and that it was a ridiculous provision. It did not, so the bill sat on the Attorney General's desk, to come into effect this coming St. Patrick's Day. Now we are scrambling. We have to deal with this bill. It is not that we are responding to the bill; we are putting it off for another year.

I will support that, but I think it is a complete failure of our obligation to deal with something that needs to be reflected on and needs a profound answer from parliamentarians. It needs for us to stand up and ask what is right, what is fair and what provisions have to be in place to protect the vulnerable, particularly those who, in a moment of darkness, think they want to end their life.

I looked at the statistics of how MAID has been applied, and that alone would cause any parliamentarian to say that we should look at this. In 2016, 1,200 people died by MAID. It more than doubled in 2017. It more than doubled again in 2018, to over 5,000, and to over 10,950 in 2021. That is 30 people every single day in this country deciding to end their life.

That is double all the deaths from breast cancer in this nation. It is more than double the national suicide rate, and we are not going to reflect and say, wait a minute, is this opening the door to a place where we should not have gone, and where none of us thought we were going, when more than double the deaths of what we see in the suicide epidemic in this country are from people going to the doctor and saying they just do not want to be here anymore?

We could be told that there are protections and measurements in place, and we have been told that. I heard that at all the hearings. Then we get examples. I do not want to wave around one example and say that this is proof of what went wrong and the perfidy of the government, but I look at an Associated Press article on Alan Nichols, who had a history of depression and mental illness, and the police brought him to the hospital because they were afraid that he was going to kill himself. His family said that we had to help him, that he had a history of mental illness. He decided to apply for MAID and he was dead. That is an outrage. His family was asking for help for him, but he was treated as an individual in his own right who could just come into the hospital, brought in by the police, who were trying to keep him alive.

I think of the suicide rates that we have had in the communities I represent. Some of the highest suicide rates in the world are in northern Canada, and we have done jack about that.

In 2019, I brought Motion No. 174 to this House, calling for a national suicide prevention action plan, and every single member of the House voted for that. I heard all the speeches, that we have to protect the vulnerable, that we are going to be there for them, that the government has a role to play. We voted for that, and nothing was done, nothing. People continue to die.

Now we have this panic legislation to say, oh my God, let us just put off for another year the fact that people just have to be depressed and they can walk in and say “I want to die” and we will let them die. One could be depressed for all manner of reasons. In Belgium, which had medically assisted suicide for many years, one can claim it for PTSD. My God, will PTSD be a reason for it? It could be depression, or injury at work. Yes, it is a crappy life to have serious chronic pain. It is going to be a crappy life, especially if people do not have a proper pension or a proper place to live, but they will be able to go, as an individual, and say “I want to die.” Are we going to let that happen on our watch? I do not think so.

Again, this is not about my moral choices over someone else's moral choices. This is about who we are as a society, whom we protect and whom we leave on the sidelines.

In Motion No. 174, to establish a national suicide prevention action plan, there were many factors that we brought in because we met with organizations across the country. We talked about what it would take to have a holistic life-supporting system for people in crisis. We talked about establishing national guidelines for best practices in suicide prevention based on the evidence and effectiveness, in a Canadian context. We said we would work to establish culturally appropriate community-based suicide prevention programs by the representative organizations of the Inuit, first nations and Métis people so that they would run the programs that work for them and they would be culturally appropriate.

We said we would create a national public health monitoring program for the prevention of suicide and the identification of groups at elevated risk. That is really important, because when we know where the elevated risks are, we know where to put resources. We talked about the creation of programs to identify and fill gaps in knowledge related to suicide and its prevention, including timely and accurate statistical data. Once again, if we do not know what the data looks like, we have no way to help. It is not the role of the government to go in and do emergency crisis prevention in every single case. That is not what we do, and we would be terrible at it, but it is that information, the analysis and being able to show where the shortfalls are that would allow funding to flow.

There would be the creation of a national online hub, providing essential information in assessing the programs in the various languages: English, French, indigenous and the other languages spoken in Canada. We would conduct, within 18 months, a comprehensive analysis of high-risk groups of people, the risk factors specific to each group, and the degree to which sexual abuse and other forms of childhood abuse and neglect have an impact on suicidal behaviour.

We would assess the barriers for Canadians in accessing appropriate and adequate health, wellness and recovery services, including substance use, addiction and bereavement services, and the funding arrangements required to provide treatment, education, professional training and other supports required to prevent suicide and assist those bereaved by a loved one's suicide. We would look at the use of culturally appropriate suicide prevention activities and best practices, and study the role social media plays with respect to suicide and suicide prevention.

If the government had done those things, then yes, it could come in and tell me it will pass this Senate bill allowing people who are mentally depressed to kill themselves. It could tell me that it has actually done the analysis and presented the information to Parliament, and then we would look at it and know where the gaps are. However, if the government has not done any of that work, it should not tell me that we are going to pass a bill that will let someone who has no support, no backup and no help say that life is tough and it is game over for them. This was the final thing we voted for in this Parliament. I know a lot of people were taking pictures and doing press releases about how great it was that they were standing up on suicide prevention.

There should be an annual report to Parliament on preparations for and implementation of the national action plan for suicide prevention, including data on progress over the previous year and a comprehensive statistical overview of suicide in Canada for the year. If we had done that in 2019, if we had four years of statistics, if we had facts and we knew where the mental health dollars needed to go, if we were not just putting it out willy-nilly but actually had statistics, then we could talk about maybe, in certain circumstances, after all these other areas have been exhausted and after all these other supports have failed, a person who may have no other choice. However, that person, in the midst of darkness today, has none of those other supports because nobody at the federal level bothered to put that in place. We have seen our provincial government fail in so many areas as well.

I was deeply concerned when I heard the Attorney General do a podcast on this legislation. He deliberately connected the change of MAID to the right to kill oneself. He said:

Remember that suicide generally is available to people. This is a group within the population [meaning the people who might need MAID] who, for physical and possibly mental reasons, can't make that choice to do it themselves. Ultimately, this provides a more humane way for them to make a decision they otherwise would have made if they were able in some other way.

That is the Attorney General of Canada saying they physically cannot do it, they might not be smart enough to do it and they might be too depressed, but they have a right to kill themselves. That is what he said on a podcast just recently.

When I am told we are going to delay this for a year, I will vote to delay it for a year, but I want to see a plan to address this. I want to see the statistics that prove how this is being used, whether it is being exploited and whether the vulnerable are being targeted or being led to use this because there are no other supports. Until that happens, the last thing we should do as a Parliament of Canada is open the door further for more people to die.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, for many years, in a substantial way, we have had legislation dealing with the issue. It stems from a Supreme Court decision. The member has made reference to that. There has been a great deal of dialogue over the last half a dozen years in regard to what we are actually debating today. We have a standing committee that has been overseeing it as of late. We have some deadlines. I think the legislation allows for more discussion by having the extension.

One of the things lost in the debate is the issue of situations where, because of the supports that are there when someone is looking for medical assistance in dying, they get some sort of treatment that ultimately takes them off the thought of having medical assistance in dying.

Could my colleague provide his thoughts on the medical professionals and others who are out there who are, in fact, providing a service that has been deemed by the Supreme Court as something that is necessary? How we define that is really what we are talking about.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are doctors who see their role and have a role of helping people who are suffering from terrible sickness, an irremediable medical condition, to end their life without pain, and we have voted for that and we supported that. However, I have seen no consensus from the medical community that people who are depressed should be able to have assisted dying and no medical consensus that children should be able to. That consensus does not exist.

The only place that consensus exists is in the unelected, unaccountable Senate, and I would not take its advice on anything, yet the government did. The reason we have this legislation is because a bunch of unelected, unaccountable senators, people who flipped pancakes for the Liberal Party and Conservative Party fundraisers over the years, decided that if one is depressed they should be able to die. Not on my watch. Forget it.

So, yes, we have had a lot of talk, but we have had no review that Parliament was promised. This government did not do that job. It would rather listen to the Senate than actually do the hard work of reviewing this legislation and getting down to what is happening. Is it working or is it not? Why, in God's name, are we talking about expanding it when we have not addressed what we were committed to under the previous provisions of this legislation?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what the member's thoughts are on what is going to happen in the next year. We have had two years to develop guidelines, regulations and safeguards around MAID for those suffering a mental illness, and yet we have not developed a consensus at all. What we did was hear conflicting evidence and conflicting opinions at committee. Is the member confident that in the next 12 months we will actually come to a consensus, or are we going to be here a year from now seeking another extension?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We are debating until midnight tonight, for folks back home, because the government is scrambling to put this paper band-aid on the wound, and that wound is the failure to do due diligence. These are profound issues, and I do not know how that evidence is going to come down. I do not know where the guardrail should be. I do not know what the good reasons for use are and where it has been exploited. We need that evidence.

If the government waits until the 11th hour next year to either move forward or delay it again, we continue to fail. We have an obligation here. The statistics and numbers are concerning. We have to get to the bottom of it.

Again, I am not making a moral judgment on people who have used MAID. I have had very close friends use it. I can see its provision, and I support that, but I cannot go along with being told “Trust us, this thing is going to work” when we have not seen any evidence that this continual expansion is in the interest of individuals or society.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, there are real concerns from indigenous communities about MAID. I have heard from constituents of mine who have family in places like British Columbia who are vulnerable, have severe mental health disorders, and have love from their family, but are separated from their family. A mother is very concerned about her daughter. She heard from a friend that her daughter had applied for MAID and was being considered.

When I talk about MAID, I do not see it as an issue about suicide. Suicide is very different for indigenous communities. MAID is about dying with dignity. It is a privilege that most indigenous people do not have. It is more about how we can make sure that we are protecting indigenous people.

I wonder if the member has any ideas about what this government needs to do in the coming year to protect those most vulnerable communities, especially indigenous peoples who we need to make sure are not being taken advantage of.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the whole plan we had developed as New Democrats, the national suicide prevention plan, came out of the groundbreaking work in Nunavut because of the understanding that statistics were important. Documentation and identifying the factors were key to being able to go in and bring down those numbers. We can dramatically decrease those kinds of deaths when we have actual facts.

That is what we have found, and I share my colleague's concern. We know that people from our region who end up in the city do not have the family supports. There is fundamental racism, and it has to be said, in the medical system. There are people who are coming in who are in distress, people who may be homeless, and they are not with their families and their loved ones. It concerns me that these decisions would be made without trying to find out where the family is. Where is the support?

If we do not have that, people will be using this, because they do not know what else to do when they are in distress. These are factors that have to be looked at, because vulnerable populations will be susceptible to this, and we have to find ways to support them. If they have the love and the support and they can get housing, in the vast majority of cases, they are going to be able to live much better lives.

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to provide medical advice to anybody. I warn people back home to not ever take medical advice from a politician; that is not what we do, but I think what we look at in our job is to make sure people have access to housing. Our job is to make sure that, if people are on the streets, they can get mental health supports.

My brother is a subway driver, and he has seen the impacts of the pandemic and mental health crisis in real time in Toronto with the rising violence. We can talk all we want about getting tough on violence, but it is our job as politicians to put in place the supports. For people who are chronically depressed and people with mental illness, our job is to make sure there are places they can receive treatment. Then I think the vast majority of cases of what we are talking about and debating tonight would not be necessary, and it would be reserved for those who are suffering from illnesses, and they have a right to die in dignity.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening to speak on Bill C-39. Before I do, I want to let you know I will be splitting my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

This legislation might be the simplest one I have had the chance to speak on in the House since being elected, but it is also one of the more serious and emotional ones. Simply put, it would allow for an extension for mental illness to be a condition for eligibility for medical assistance in dying.

I strongly support this delay for several reasons. The first is about concerns I heard about from so many neighbours of mine in Kitchener. In particular, I remember one conversation a group had in their backyard on a colder afternoon just last month. It was between Hannah, Peter and some friends of theirs, and they wanted to share with me specifically some of their serious concerns with medical assistance in dying being expanded further than it already had been.

I really appreciated them sharing their stories, concerns and recommendations. In my view, that was the best of how our democracy is supposed to function, which is for folks like myself who are sitting in legislatures like this one, who have a say in laws like this, to be hearing from neighbours about their concerns. In that conversation and in emails since, it has been almost been universal that folks in my community want to see at least a delay, if not more.

Second, I am supportive because we heard the concerns of experts across the country, such as doctors and health care professionals. On December 1, I really appreciated hearing from the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada, which includes the heads of the psychiatry departments of all 17 medical schools across the country, as they appealed for the governing party to delay what was then an expected expansion of MAID for those with mental illness.

The third reason I am supportive is because I believe we should spend more time closing the social safety net before we expand medical assistance in dying. I would put it to all colleagues here and ask why it is we are seeing a movement to expand medical assistance in dying much more quickly than we are seeing an expansion to the social safety net. I will give a few examples.

In my community, as colleagues well know as I have shared it many times, the unsheltered population has tripled in the last three years from just over 300 to over 1,000 people living rough. It is clear what is being done when it comes to the affordability of housing is not nearly enough, that we are going in the wrong direction and that more needs to be done.

As well, there are income supports, whether that is a guaranteed livable income for all or as many in this place, myself included, have pushed very hard for, a guaranteed income for those with disabilities across the country. Although we have made progress, and I am glad to see that Bill C-22 was passed in this House and is now in the Senate, the fact is it is yet to be funded. I would strongly encourage the governing party to fund the Canada disability benefit to get on with closing the social safety net with the urgency it deserves.

Next is mental health specifically. Just last week we saw a big announcement about health care, and yet absent from that announcement was dedicated mental health funding. It is all the more egregious when in the 2021 campaign the governing party ran that campaign on a commitment for a $4.5-billion Canada mental health transfer.

I hope there is no sleight of hand here, that with this new health care announcement we are not going to continue to see dedicated mental health funding. It is imperative that all parliamentarians in this place continue to apply pressure to ensure the Canada mental health transfer is in budget 2023. When I last asked the parliamentary secretary about it on Wednesday night, I did not get a clear answer, and it should concern all of us to not see dedicated mental health funding.

In fact, it was because of this absence of sufficient supports for affordable housing, income supports and mental health care that I joined the CEO of the Canadian Mental Health Association of Waterloo Wellington to encourage the Minister of Justice to follow through on the delay that had been promised in December of last year. I am glad to see him follow through on that.

With my remaining time before I close, I just want to quickly mention the importance of quality journalism in this country and how it relates to this legislation.

I am glad to hear that all parties are supportive of Bill C-39, but I am not surprised to hear that, because of the work of Althia Raj and the Toronto Star. Specifically, back in November, as other members have shared, Ms. Raj spoke with the Minister of Justice. At the time, he said nothing could be done and that it would be a “challenge in the current Parliament” to delay the expansion of medical assistance in dying.

Ms. Raj then did something very reasonable. She reached out to all of the opposition parties, including the Green Party, and asked them if they would support what is now Bill C-39. Opposition parties responded, and days later, on December 11, Ms. Raj published an article sharing that all opposition parties were supportive. Then the question was put back to the Minister of Justice, and days later, on December 15, it was announced that this legislation would come before this House.

While there are many advocates and many campaigns that lead toward legislation such as this one, I think it is important that we call out and appreciate non-partisan journalists across the country doing important work to help bring to light the agreement that is sometimes there to move forward with important changes like the ones we are discussing, and to call out what might be certain rebuttals that may or may not be justified. In this case, they were not, and I appreciate Ms. Raj, as well as the medical professionals I mentioned earlier, like those from the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada, for their advocacy, which brought us to this point.

In closing, I applaud the governing party for introducing Bill C-39 and following through on the promise that was made back in December, and for listening to the need to slow down. I have no doubt that other parliamentarians across the country heard concerns similar to the ones I heard from Hannah, Peter and so many others. I also encourage the government to move more quickly on the social supports that are needed in my community and across the country.

[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?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice is a person and member in this place whom I really enjoy working with. He is focused on working together to get things done for people as opposed to parties, and I really appreciate that.

I think this question is an important one, but to answer it honestly, I have not yet seen the result of the special committee in place, which is meant to report back to Parliament on the research it has been doing. I think it is important to rely on committees of this House to share the research and work they have been doing. I am looking forward to reading what it comes out with. I hope that we will have time over the coming year to look at what it recommends and that the governing party will take the recommendations seriously, move forward on them and ensure that sufficient changes are put in place.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill, at this point, is necessary for us to ensure that we are protecting the most vulnerable. To me, and to many of us, as we are hearing, it speaks to a bigger issue: The government is leaving many behind.

I appreciate that my colleague spoke to the importance of closing the social safety net and spoke about the importance of disability supports, appropriate mental health supports, affordable housing and a guaranteed livable basic income. There are many components necessary for us to move forward to address the bigger issue.

I wonder if the member can share with us what he is hearing from constituents in his riding regarding what is most vital for us to move forward with so that those who are struggling the most have what they need to get through each day.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith because I know what a champion she has been in this place in pushing for people with disabilities to get the follow-through they have been promised and have advocated so strongly for over so many years. We could cut poverty by 40% in this country by providing a guaranteed income for every person with a disability, who are right now disproportionately living in legislated poverty. It is a national embarrassment, in my view, that we have not done more already.

Whether it is related to providing a guaranteed income for folks with disabilities and funding the Canada disability benefit or following through on the Canada mental health transfer, it is important for our democracy that political parties and leaders follow through on promises they have made. I am going to continue to push, alongside the member opposite and others in this place, in the lead-up to budget 2023 to see those important commitments followed through on.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of speakers make reference to the issue of mental health and this member, the leader of the Green Party, also referred to palliative care. The greatest contribution that Ottawa can do in regard to the areas of mental health, health in general, palliative care and hospice care is provide the financial resources and then use the Canada Health Act and raise the profile of the issue itself. We can put a checkmark on all three of those with respect to the last five or six years of this government. At the end of the day, we do need to see more working together with provinces and indigenous communities, in terms of continuously raising the profile of the issue to make sure the resources are being properly allocated.

When she reflects on the legislation and the special joint committee that is out there, is there something specific that the leader of the Green Party would filter out or like to see?

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

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague and parliamentary secretary's first set of comments, absolutely I am looking to the federal government to defend public single-payer universal health care as under the Canada Health Act. I am looking at threats to that system. For as much as people say we have to do it because things are bad right now, that is the work that has never stopped to undermine our public health care system in Canada by the forces for privatization, and they must be resisted.

I would throw one door open here. Before deciding that this is up to a group of experts, please let us get a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to ask whether extending MAID to mental health conditions falls within the Supreme Court of Canada's understanding of the ruling in Carter.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about some opportunities and she also cited broken promises when it came to palliative care. As members know, I was here last Monday and the Monday before and would have been here tonight on Adjournment Proceedings, to drag the government here to talk about mental health, but it was disrupted so I am back.

I asked the minister about mental health just last week. She cited:

Through the proposed bilateral agreements on the shared health priorities, we are working with the provinces and territories to integrate mental health and substance use as a full and equal part of our universal health care system.

However, when it comes to the reality on the ground, the Liberals have still not delivered on their promised mental health transfer of $4.5 billion. Even the agreements that they signed with the provinces today do not assure that.

Does my colleague agree that we need, enshrined in the legislation, parity between mental and physical health to have a proper conversation in this House about expanding medical assistance in dying for those whose sole identified underlying medical condition is a mental illness?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is one of my favourite recommendations from medical doctors around mental health. Because the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni is from such a beautiful place in the world, I do not know if he knows that Dr. Melissa Lem prescribes visiting national parks to get out into nature.

To answer the member's question simply, yes, I agree with parity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands regarding her relationship with Sue Rodriguez and the first battle toward medical assistance in dying that took place decades ago, which has brought us here.

The expert panel that was convened reported in the summer and outlined a number of different areas in which the systems are ready. As a government, we have heard from a number of different parties about the need for an extension. I wonder if my friend could advise what specific issue she has with the expert panel report with respect to medical assistance in dying, in respect of mental health as the sole underlying condition.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, there is an expert panel looking at the medical and mental health conditions, but I think we have skipped a step in making sure what we are doing remains constitutional.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-39 regarding medical assistance in dying, which proposes to delay for another year the implementation of provisions that would expand the availability of medical assistance in dying to those whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. I think we really need to start looking at how we got to this stage.

It went to the Senate and we had no issues with it, to some degree. Most of Parliament was fine with it. However, when it came back, the Senate had added in a provision with respect to one's mental state.

I started thinking about the many people I have spoken with over the years when I was either a mayor or now as a member of Parliament. When people would phone me, they would usually start the conversation easily by talking about whatever issues they were dealing with. Then they would start talking about themselves. I do not know if it is me, my voice or my appearance, but they would open up to me and start telling me about how they were going through these troubles and the difficulties they were facing. It was not necessarily financial. Sometimes that was the trigger, but most times it was their mental state itself. As they would start talking, I would start getting very worried about people like this who have a mental condition and whether there was somebody there to help them. As they kept talking, sometimes they would break down crying or get angry, and that would change throughout the whole conversation.

However, as I was dealing with them, I would hope that they had some kind of assistance from some medical professional. If they did not, then who would be there to help them? I am worried this is the help they are potentially looking for, but I hope that will never be the case. When I was speaking with these individuals, I would usually try to steer the conversation gently and ask if they had a psychologist or psychiatrist working with them. They would say something like they did, but that person does not know anything, and they would start getting angry again. Then I would start to get worried because I did not want to see them in that state of agitation. I wanted to try to help them as best I could. I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist, so I do not have the expertise, but I would try to at least direct them to where there was help.

Probably one of my biggest concerns with respect to this legislation is the fact that we are relying on our medical professionals more than ever. We all know that there is an extreme shortage of doctors and nurses right across this country, so when we start talking about people having the ability to apply for MAID due to their mental state, how is that going to help them if there are no doctors to assist them?

My next concern is whether we are really there to assist them, to cure them or help them out of that state. That to me is where it seems like we as a society have failed on so many fronts.

When I was talking to a grade 10 class during COVID in 2021, the students asked what I thought the number one issue in Canada was going to be when we came out of COVID. I said that was very easy because the number one issue was going to be the mental state of Canadians. It was surprising that the class all responded with, “Really?” I asked them what they thought it was going to be and they said that it was the economy. I said that was not something we really had to worry about and that once people started getting out again and businesses started opening up that, yes, it may be slow at the start, but eventually we would get back to some sense of normal again, but that the mental state of Canadians was something that was going to be with us for years. That was just during COVID.

Unfortunately, before COVID, the mental state of Canadians was suffering. That is something the current government has yet to help with. It promised in the last election that it was going to put more money toward the mental state of Canadians and assist with more doctors, medications and facilities to help those people. However, as we debate here today, it seems that it is easier for the government to offer medical assistance in dying instead of assisting them in achieving the mental state they so deserve.

I have spoken to many people, and they have asked what this MAID legislation is about. Why are so many people concerned about it? I said it is not so much about MAID. It is more about the addition of someone with a mental illness, without a foreseeable death, to actually apply for MAID. People have given me looks, asking what I mean by that. I have said that someone who has a mental illness, depending on what mental illness they have, may or may not qualify for MAID. I would still get people asking why there would not be a doctor, psychologist or somebody there to help them, as opposed to offering them MAID. I replied that that was a very good point and that it is one of the reasons I am speaking out against this legislation.

With moving Bill C-39 forward to extend it for another year, Canadians also need to understand some of the legislation that we are putting forward in the House and how it is not necessarily helping all Canadians. I am not going to bring up someone who has ALS or another disease. That is their right, and that is absolutely fine. To me, they are in charge of their faculties. However, when someone has a mental illness, my biggest concern is whether they are mentally capable of making these decisions.

I know someone will talk to me later and say there will be two psychiatrists evaluating them. Everyone knows that people, when they have a mental condition, have different states of mind where they may seem better at one time, and then they may seem worse or go into a depression, whatever the case may be. Is someone truly getting a fair assessment of the condition someone is dealing with at the time? To me, it is very cold and heartless that people can say, yes, we think someone is acceptable for medically assisted dying, as opposed to really diving into the areas as to how we can help them.

Over the years, there are people who have reached out to me and it is heartbreaking. I do not know if many other MPs have had to deal with something like this, but it is a very sad state. When we start getting into all the funding, or lack of funding, to deal with a mental state. Before COVID, it was estimated that about one-third of all Canadians had had some form of mental condition at one time or another. I cannot imagine what it has grown to after COVID. Are we at 40% or 45%? I do not know the numbers, but we can see how we are escalating the mental stability of Canadians.

Is the government reaching out to them, trying to make their lives any better? I do not believe so. That is one of the reasons I am so happy that we are able to take another year to look at what we can do to either refine or change this legislation, or actually start dealing with the problem itself. We need to deal with the mental state of Canadians and get the people the help they so rightly deserve.

For people to keep living on with a mental condition, they do not get better until they get help. Without the doctors, nurses or facilities out there, there is no way Canadians are going to see a better society. When we start looking at the mental state of Canadians, there are other areas that we can possibly improve upon, such as our criminal system, because a lot of people are addicted to drugs or whatever else, but we need to start dealing with that as best as possible.

I wanted to focus more on what we can do to assist people with their mental state, as opposed to offering them MAID. We need to start getting into the real cause of the problems and the real situation on why they got to this state. If we can accomplish that, we can build a far superior society than the one we have today. As parliamentarians, our number one goal is to make Canada a much better place to live, as opposed to the alternative being proposed tonight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to think no one inside this chamber would advocate using MAID legislation as an alternative because of a lack of services to mental health, from a federal government's perspective.

I do have a question I would put to the member. He talks about the importance of mental health, yet when we take a look at it, the government has put a great deal of emphasis and financial resources behind the issue of mental health. The Conservative Party is more inclined to say it will give provinces the money and not have any conditions at all on how they are giving the money. The member cannot say that they want to have more mental health and not say that the Conservatives are going to enforce their will with provinces by encouraging the provinces and the territories to spend more on mental health, because from the Conservative Party's perspective, they just want to hand over the money.

We believe in the Canada Health Act. We believe mental health is a part of health, so this is something I think is quite different between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Would the member, on the record today, say that he would be encouraging, through the Canada Health Act, provinces to invest more into mental health?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I always do enjoy my hon. colleague's little fairy tales. He likes to talk about how great the government is doing, but if it were the case that the Liberals truly believed this, why are they not having a better effect on Canadians right now?

We have many people suffering. The Liberals promised in the last election that they were going to put more money into mental health. Did they? No, unfortunately, they did not, and that is typical for the governing party. It likes to talk a lot, but it actually does not deliver as much as it likes to talk. I can assure the House that the member sure likes to talk.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, given that Canada is founded on indigenous peoples' lands, Canada's colonial history and the impacts of its genocidal policies on indigenous peoples, does the member agree there needs to be regulations and special provisions to make sure indigenous peoples are getting the culturally appropriate, trauma-informed assessments they deserve?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, very much so, that is what needs to be done. We have a different culture, completely, in Canada, that needs to be dealt with differently, and I will give her an example of that.

When I was mayor, I was also the chair of our seniors foundation, and one of our board members from the MD of Greenview had said he wanted to build an indigenous lodge right in Grand Cache. That is actually in the works right now. It is going to be 12 rooms. It is only going to be breaking ground this spring, so we are getting ahead of ourselves, but I know when he brought that forward, he said it was going to be a round building with a lot of cultural amenities, so I am very much in favour of making sure we take care of the needs of our indigenous peoples.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect, when we talk about health care or access to mental health care, that quite often gets forgotten about or just more or less put onto the back burner. It is people living in rural Canada and the access people have to the different types of care and services they need.

I am wondering if the member wants to talk about the importance of having services for rural Canadians. That needs to also be part of the conversation when we talk about supports for mental health.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. Like I said, when I was mayor, that was one of the things we also talked about. Our county started about half an hour west of Spruce Grove. That was our closest location to get assistance for mental health, and unfortunately in rural Alberta, and I should say rural Canada for that matter, we do not have nearly the level of assistance compared to our urban partners. We need to really balance out and make sure we have equal access right across the country to deal with the mental issues in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to provide an opportunity, if I could, for the member. I realize that it was probably made in error, but just for the record, I do want to correct the statement he made of “our indigenous people.” Perhaps that was a mistake.

We know that indigenous people are not our property, and I just want to offer an opportunity for the member to correct the language he used to ensure that it is on the record what he intended to say.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

While not a point of order, it is a great suggestion, which we have heard a number of times in this chamber. I did not hear it said, but if someone wanted to retract something, I would be more than happy to allow that to happen.

The hon. member for Yellowhead.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not mean “our” as in possession, absolutely. I just meant “people as well”. I thank the member for bringing that forward, and I do apologize for that.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I have witnessed over the years while we have been debating the issue of MAID, from 2016 and onward, is that there is no unanimous consent coming from the Conservative benches. There are many individuals even within the Conservative Party who have differing opinions in terms of what it is that the member himself is suggesting. If I am wrong on that I would be very much interested in the member telling me that I am wrong.

The reason I say that is because there was a special joint committee for MAID that has been out there doing a great deal of consulting, working with Canadians, looking to health experts and talking to individuals who are either direct or indirect stakeholders. There has been a great deal of discussion.

On the legislation itself, I suspect that the member is going to be voting in favour of it, but I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts in regards to the fact that even within his own political party there is no overwhelming sense that what he is suggesting is in fact the best way to be going.

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

Mr. Speaker, there was a great phrase coined by our interim leader that “unity does not mean uniformity.” The reason that is important is because MAID is a deeply personal issue. We are not here to talk about the merits of MAID in and of itself. What we are here to talk about today is the expansion of mental illness as a sole reason for people to be eligible for medical assistance in dying.

If we look at the results Canadians are seeing, it is quite alarming and astonishing to see the government is willing to proceed with that as a reason for people to access this. Where we are united as a party, and I think where most Canadians, generally speaking, across this entire country are united when it comes to this issue is they want to see people have access to the supports they need for mental health.

I referenced Mr. Landsberg and how for over 20 years he has been advocating for the conversation around mental health and to try to eliminate the stigma that for so many years was assigned to people with mental illness. When we proceed with allowing mental illness to be a sole reason, it sends the wrong message. That is where Canadians want to see us go, which is to make sure we are sending the right messages and giving people hope as they go forward when they are going through their darkest hour.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about supports for people with mental health issues. One group we have not talked about is public safety personnel. This is definitely not partisan; it is about us both coming from rural communities. That includes border services, corrections services, firefighters, operational intelligence personnel, paramedics, police, public safety communications and search and rescue personnel. Half those individuals experience some sort of mental disorder in their career in their lifetime and one in 10 will actually consider death by suicide.

These professionals and their families have remained decades behind. We know about the military and veterans with regard to supports for their well-being, and we are just scratching the surface in addressing their considerable mental health needs. Their core funding comes from the Canadian Institute for Public Safety Research and Treatment and concludes on March 31, just six weeks from now. Without a renewed commitment on that funding, it will end.

Maybe my colleague can speak about some of those public safety personnel in his riding who have suffered through PTSD or some trauma and how important it is we get the proper resources to support them, especially those heroes who have put their lives on the line and the sacrifices they made, as we know coming from rural Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's question, because too often people from rural Canada are forgotten about. With the uniqueness of working with the provinces, letting the provinces decide how that is going to be spent is going to be beneficial. Every province has a different geography. They have different programs. They have different needs and different ways of having that set up. There might be a federal workforce like CBSA, but the provinces are going to be best situated to make sure the funding gets rolled out properly. There is a healing lodge in my riding, and it would have the opportunity to advance cultural practices that would be suitable to the needs of indigenous people. Allowing each region of the country to have a bit more control of that funding would be appropriate.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support the need for additional mental health for Canadians. That is why I am very proud of the fact that we have a $198-billion agreement with the provinces now over the next 10 years, as provinces will determine how best to use that money. There are some qualifiers for that. There is going to be more accountability. There is going to be transparency.

Let us contrast that, as Conservative members stand up and are critical of the government, saying that we are not doing enough on mental health. I think we need to be honest with Canadians in what the Conservative Party is proposing to do on mental health, which is nothing. There is no commitment coming from the Conservative Party to deal with mental health, rural or urban. If there is, I ask the member to please tell me where the announcement is. What is the Conservative Party doing? Give me another half-hour, and I will be more than happy to explain what it is the Liberal Party is doing in support of mental health.

Depression is not going to be used as access to medical assistance in dying. I have more confidence in our medical profession.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the results of the government. The Liberals have been in government for eight years, and one result of the government, which I gave as an example during my speech, was to implement a 988 suicide hotline across the country. It was unanimously supported by the House, but here we are more than 900 days from it happening. This is one very small step and the government cannot even implement it.

We have to look at some of the other results. We have to look at the mental health and addiction crisis we have across the country. We have to look at the results of eight years of the government. When looking at the cost of living, we see the price of houses has doubled in eight years and we have record-high inflation.

Regardless of what the Liberals say they are doing or hope they are doing, we have to look at the results of their actions after being in government for eight years, and it is not very good.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the government has not delivered a single dollar after its promise of mental health transfers. The member talked about the importance of support. We agree with her given what I heard in her speech.

The government still has not tabled legislation to create parity between mental and physical health, which is absolutely critical. We have heard from the disability community, especially people who are suffering with mental health issues as their underlying illness, and they are all saying they need better supports, such as access to treatment. They are also saying that it is tough to pay their bills, buy groceries and pay for rent.

We put forward a proposal for a guaranteed livable income for those living with disabilities and for seniors. We know tax breaks are not going to help people in that category because they do not have the income. I am hoping my colleague can talk about some of the solutions to help support those who are struggling so they are not considering medically assisted dying for an underlying mental illness.

We can talk about solutions. I know the Liberals want to deflect because they do not want to talk about their track record. That is what they just did in the question to my colleague. I am hoping we can hear more proposals to help support people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I see his other colleague, whom I sit with on the HUMA committee and work with very closely.

I am really glad the member brought up people with disabilities. We worked really hard on Bill C-22, and it is a classic example of a real failure from the government. It championed that it was going to be bringing in this disability benefit act, and we spearheaded it through Parliament, but people with disabilities still do not know how much they are getting, when they are getting it or when it will be implemented. Everything will be done by regulation instead of legislation.

There is so much uncertainty, and that is how the government governs. It has grand announcements and big fanfare, but its actions have no substance to them. A perfect example is what we saw with that legislation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I have allowed two questions and two answers throughout the question and comment portion, and I want to make sure that we try to keep ourselves brief so that other members can participate in the debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pride and emotion to take part once again in the debate on medical assistance in dying.

I have had the privilege of being a member of Parliament for nearly eight years now. I was also a member of the Quebec National Assembly from 2008 to 2015. I, along with my colleague from Bourassa, am one of the few here who have participated in the debate on medical assistance in dying as a member both at the provincial level and the federal level. I can say in all modesty that this gives me a very unique perspective. I will expand on this in a moment.

If there is one issue that calls for political partisanship to be put aside, it is medical assistance in dying. I have a fundamental belief that has not altered one bit in the time I have been involved in these debates: There is no right or wrong position, there is only the position that each person, as a human being, is comfortable with.

When we hear an opposing viewpoint, we should listen and respect it, not attack it in a partisan way. I will always remember something that happened in June 2014 in the National Assembly. A Liberal MNA at the time, Saul Polo, was sharing his views in the debate on medical assistance in dying. He was vehemently opposed to it, to an extent that is hard to imagine. I remember it very well, because I was sitting along a line in the National Assembly that was perpendicular to where he was. His face was flushed with passion and his fist was clenched, and he was saying that we should not touch this subject. When he finished his remarks, I stood up and applauded him, not because I agreed with him, but because I was celebrating the fact that in that legislature we could have completely divergent, but respected and respectful views.

That is the approach we should be taking when dealing with an issue as personal, sensitive and human as medical assistance in dying. We can trade jabs back and forth all day long, and let us just say that I do pretty well when it comes to attacking my opponent. There may be 1,000 good reasons to attack one's opponent, but please, we must not use MAID to attack one another. We must respect opposite views.

We have come together today because the government has decided to set aside its goal to allow access to medical assistance in dying for people with mental illness. It is the right thing to do. While I personally support a well-regulated MAID regime combined with extensive palliative care, the issue of medical assistance in dying for people with mental illness is extremely sensitive, so these kinds of measures must not be rushed through.

The government had intended to expand access to MAID as soon as possible, that is, in just a few days, to include people struggling with mental illness. It has since decided to take a pause. I cannot call it a step back, because the government still plans to go ahead with this, but in a year from now. This is not the right way to go, and I will explain why.

Any number of personal reasons may be in play when people decide where they stand. I imagine we all know one person who has experienced serious mental health issues and hit rock bottom, never to recover—or so those around them believed. We all also know people who have bounced back from terrible trials that dragged them into a downward spiral, an abyss of profound sadness. With time, they managed to adapt to their reality, gradually build themselves back up and regain the sense of self-worth we all need.

That is why, as I see it right now, medical assistance in dying cannot be for people tumbling in the darkness. I have found the Quebec experience to be helpful in pondering this issue. To be clear, I am not saying that Quebec is better than anyone else. That is not it at all, but the fact is, there has been more legislative work and more studies on medical assistance in dying in Quebec than anywhere else. In Quebec, we have been talking about it for 15 years. I know what I am talking about because I participated in the debates in the National Assembly and in the House of Commons.

Here is a statistic that members might find surprising. More people are dying with medical assistance in Quebec than anywhere else in the world. The statistics published in Le Devoir in January show that 5.1% of the deaths in the province were medically assisted.

That is more than in the Netherlands and Belgium, which have rates of 4.8% and 2.3%, respectively.

Should we be proud of that situation? Should we be ashamed of it? No. It is just something that we should be aware of. It is not up to me to judge the fact that 5.3% of people in Quebec are currently choosing to have medical assistance in dying. That is just the reality. The figures do not lie.

The Quebec nation worked hard on this issue at the parliamentary level and, a few years ago, the government opened the door to studying the idea of whether medical assistance in dying should be made available to those suffering from mental illness.

After many weeks of thorough and rigorous work and hearing from as many as 3,000 people and hundreds of experts as part of a consultation process, the committee that examined the issue and the government in office decided not to move forward on medical assistance in dying for those suffering from mental illness. Why?

Here is what it says in the committee's report, and I quote:

We note, at the conclusion of our work, that there is no clear medical consensus on the incurability of mental disorders and the irreversible decline in capability that would be associated with them. There are differing positions among specialists. As legislators, it is difficult for us to comment on this issue.

The Liberal MNA David Birnbaum explained:

There is no clear consensus in the medical community on the incurability and irreversibility of mental disorders. Yet [these criteria] are part of the fundamental guidelines in the current legislation. Persistent doubts about the evaluation of these two criteria lead us to exercise [the greatest] caution.

That prompted the former Parti Québécois MNA for Joliette, Véronique Hivon, to say:

This decision proves that the goal is not to open up access more and more, to expand, but to open up the right amount of access to respect the individual while protecting the vulnerable.

That comes from Quebec, where 5.3% of the population chooses medical assistance in dying. This legislative measure came from Quebec. For 15 years, Quebec has been studying the issue of medical assistance in dying in an objective, neutral, non-partisan manner. I know what I am talking about, and so much the better.

The current government wanted to proceed hastily on this issue. No. I applaud and will vote in favour of this bill we are discussing this evening. It will allow us to take a lateral step to delay the Liberals' ambition. We will see where things stand in a year and whether they want to go further on this.

Everyone needs to understand one thing. By its very nature, medical assistance in dying is irreversible. Louise-Maude Rioux Soucy said it well in an editorial that appeared in Le Devoir on January 4:

MAID is offered as part of the continuum of care...There is an unwritten obligation attached to it: the quality and universality of palliative care must be beyond reproach in order to guarantee, at all times and in all circumstances, that medical assistance in dying is an exception.

I will now talk about a much more personal story. Last year, I was confronted with the reality of death. My mother, aged 97 years and 10 months, died in May, and my father, aged 99 years, four months and two days, died in December. As we can see, they died seven months apart and lived for a century. They were seriously ill at the end of their lives. In the winter of their lives, my mother and father fought to survive and death came for them.

MAID never came up because it was a non-issue. They were not interested. Our family was lucky. They got the most excellent palliative care available, and we are grateful. We were able to talk to them. Their children, grandchildren and even their great-grandchildren were able to talk to them. I wanted to share this because, at the hospital where my mother was, there was a section for people receiving palliative care who were about to die in a matter of days and, just down the hall, there was another section for people about to receive MAID. I had some great conversations with family members and even the individuals who requested MAID. The point is, we can and must respect the wishes of every individual. There is no right or wrong. There is only what we are comfortable with. I am comfortable with MAID as long as palliative care is available.

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

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

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

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

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, for once I can agree deeply with my colleague from Winnipeg North. As I said earlier, there are hundreds of good ways to attack an opponent. Let us please not take medical assistance in dying to address a political issue.

For sure, we have to be very careful. This is why, when we talk about mental illness, it is very tough to trace the line exactly on what is good and what is wrong, what is mental illness and what is incurable. This is why we have to be careful and we have to listen carefully. It is a bit too early, to say the least, to address it. Based on the Quebec experience, with 15 years of parliamentary work, two bills have been passed and it is very progressive, if we can use that adjective, in this area, where 5.3% of people die with medical assistance in dying. We have to be careful and the Quebec experience told us not to touch it right now.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I agree that there needs to be more investment in palliative care and it is a very important aspect of our society. Today, we are talking about mental health and MAID. We know that one of the pillars of recovery from mental illness is a financial pillar: the ability to have a house, to buy food and to get access to medication and supports. Does the member feel that a guaranteed livable basic income is something that could alleviate suffering in the wake of the mental health crisis in this country?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my life as a member of Parliament, and before that as a journalist, I have seen people with so much money and they had deep trouble with mental illness. Also, I have seen people with a huge family and a very tough life, because their income was not as good as expected, but they were happy, all together. Therefore, I do not think that we can put a price on mental illness.

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

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

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

I would like to hear what my colleague thinks.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a debate for the provinces. It falls under the issue of health care funding, which, as we know, is a provincial responsibility.

I will let the provincial legislatures debate the ongoing funding for medical assistance in dying, especially for palliative care.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about this issue tonight, because for me it is deeply personal. As someone who has suffered with depression and mental health issues at various times in my life, including a severe depressive period for which I was seeking treatment, I think the expansion of medically assisted death to those with mental health conditions is incredibly troubling. The fact that this is where we are, almost a month away from when this would be available to Canadians suffering with mental health issues, is a catastrophic failure of the government to properly deal with this issue. I am so unbelievably disappointed that the Liberals are rushing through legislation now to try to delay the implementation of this because they did not do any of the hard work that was necessary in order to get this right. The problem is that there is so much evidence out there on how they could have gotten it right, yet they chose not to.

I want to talk a bit about an article that was written on December 15, 2022, by Dr. Karandeep Gaind, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto and the chair of his hospital's MAID team. If anyone has not done it, they should read this article, because it outlines and summarizes the incredible challenges with this issue and how the government has failed in examining it.

I am going to start here: “[E]vidence shows it is impossible to predict that a mental illness will not improve in any individual.” He goes on to say, “Yet expansion activists mistakenly believe they can make such predictions.” Research, which he cites, “tells us their chance of being right amounts to chance or less, with precision modelling showing only 47 per cent of [irremediable medical condition] predictions end up being correct”.

This means that 47% of the time when a doctor says a person's mental health will not improve, they are wrong. This evidence was readily available to the government at any time, yet we find ourselves having to push through legislation to delay it at the last minute.

He goes on to say this: “[W]hen expanded to those seeking death for mental illness, evidence shows MAID becomes indistinguishable from suicide.” We should remember that this is a psychiatrist talking. He says, “We cannot differentiate those seeking psychiatric euthanasia from suicidal individuals who resume fulfilling lives after being provided suicide prevention, rather than facilitated death.”

Let that sink in for a minute. This is a psychiatrist who teaches at the University of Toronto and is the chair of his hospital's MAID team. These are the things he is saying. He has been saying them for a very long time, and the Liberals still could not get this right.

He then talks about the federally appointed panel:

The government-appointed federal panel...was responsible for providing safeguards, standards and guidelines for how to implement MAID for mental illness. Instead, the panel recommended that no further legislative safeguards be required before providing death for mental illness, and did not provide any specific standards for the length, type or number of treatments that should be tried before providing MAID. Its report even suggested society had made an “ethical choice” that MAID should be provided even if suicide and MAID were the same.

This psychiatrist is summarizing what the government panel found. To me, it is absolutely and truly shocking.

He goes on to say, “I am not a conscientious objector.” There are many who are. There are members in this place who conscientiously object to medically assisted death. I am not one of them. I think it can be appropriate in certain circumstances, and Dr. Gaind is in that group as well. He says, “However it is clear to me that Canada’s planned expansion of MAID to mental illness is based on ignorance—if not outright disregard—of fundamental suicide prevention principles.”

Let that sink in. Again, I go back to who is saying this. This is not me saying this, not a parliamentarian saying it who does not have experience in mental health. This is a psychiatrist at the University of Toronto and the chair of the hospital's MAID team. He finishes, “It appears to ignore what drives the most marginalized people to consider death as an alternative to life suffering.”

This again is the incredible challenge. We have heard all the reports about people thinking they should now get MAID as a result of mental health issues. I cannot believe that we let it get this far, that we do not have rules in place and that we have to go forward and put this off.

The government had so much time to get this right and it could not. It did not even come close. This to me is just a symptom of how the government does things without thinking them through, without thinking of the consequences. What is going to happen if we do not get this bill passed by March 17? Then it is open and available. How is this legislation just being introduced now to push it back? The government knew ages ago that it was not going to meet this deadline. It knew ages ago that it did not have safeguards in place, and yet here we are now. I find that breathtaking.

The doctor's final comments in the article, I think, we should all listen to. They read:

Postponing the March 2023 expansion of euthanasia for mental illness is the only responsible course. Canadians and mental health organizations recognized this and called for it, with the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention and over 200 individual psychiatrists so far signing a petition to this effect, and the academic chairs of the departments of psychiatry across Canada joining this call for delay.

That article was written in December and here we are now dealing with this legislation. It is a catastrophic failure by the government and the minister responsible for this. Let us hope it is not a catastrophic failure for Canadians.

Someone who is dealing with a mental health issue needs help. Let us be clear. I went through a period in my life where I did not want to continue to live. It was a deeply dark, terrible period of time.

The government is moving forward with this legislation with absolutely no safeguards in place to protect people who are in that terrible place. Eminent psychiatrists have been banging the clarion bell on this for ages and the government did nothing until the last minute. Now it is saying we have to put it off.

I can tell colleagues that I have absolutely no faith that the government is going to get it right. As the quotation I cited in the article stated, the panel got it wrong. I do not know if there has been any ministerial direction to make sure it gets it right. What I can say is this. On this side of the House, we are going to stand up for people with mental health issues. We are going to protect them and not let the government just throw them under the bus.

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

Mr. Speaker, just to provide a little bit of clarity on the issue of mental health, I challenge the member or others who want to make this more partisan to tell me of another government that has invested as much money in health care or mental health, and has focused so much attention on mental health, as this national government has. Stephen Harper definitely did not do that.

My question to the member is related to the special joint committee. There is a special joint committee whose membership comes from all sides that is doing a lot of work on the issue. Does the member believe there are no exceptions himself where any form of mental illness could be eligible for MAID?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member said they do not want to make it political, but then talked about a former prime minister, spending and other things. I am not making it political. I am reading the words from a psychiatrist who has more experience than the member, or any member of the government, will ever have on this issue. He is outlining a litany of concerns and how they went down the wrong path on this.

If their investments in health care have been so incredible, why are the premiers screaming that health care is in a terrible state of disarray? That happened under his government. If it is spending more money, it is not doing it well. That is the problem.

It is not political. I am begging the government to get it right on behalf of Canadians who suffer from mental health issues. They need the help.

[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.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that this issue is so complicated that it is incredibly difficult for members of Parliament to try to set those parameters without extensive study.

I want to go back to the figure that was cited by the professor where he said that 47% of the predictions of people's mental health issue being irremediable are wrong. We look at that stat that 50% of the time they are wrong, and if someone with an irremediable mental health issue goes for MAID, 50% of those predictions are wrong, so the possibility is that 50% of the people getting medically assisted death could have had treatment and got better. That is a statistic that every member in this chamber should be haunted by until we get this right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Dufferin—Caledon for being extremely open and honest about his own experience of deep pain and darkness. I also want to keep everything with respect to this issue as non-partisan as possible.

We have a year. Bill C-39 is going to pass. I have not heard any souls in this place say they are not going to vote for it. What do we do in the coming year? What would the hon. member recommend?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is difficult. I think the challenge with trying to come up with something at committee is the limitations of committee. Witnesses come, give a five-minute intervention, and we have a five or six-minute opportunity to question. Quite frankly, on an issue like this, I just do not think that is going to do it.

We need professors of psychiatry from well-renowned universities putting in the guardrails to protect Canadians by telling us what those are, and the government has to listen.

[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 it exists nowhere near to the effect that it is happening in Canada and 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.

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

Madam Speaker, it is somewhat offensive to even give an impression that we want death on demand, or that any member of the House of Commons would want death on demand. That is really quite an extreme statement.

As a government, we have invested an immense amount of resources towards mental health, far more than previous governments.

I do want to address one issue. When an agent of veterans affairs, a civil servant made that recommendation, I think it greatly offended every member of the House of Commons. My understanding is that that person is no longer talking to veterans.

I am wondering if the member would provide this clarification. Would she not agree, whether it is a veterans' agent or individuals who do not have the authority to even deal with the issue of MAID, they should not be recommending, in any circumstances, that MAID be—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

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

Madam Speaker, the truth of the matter is that this issue exposed something that is happening in our society, and it is happening without oversight.

When the previous minister of justice indicated in the House that the first bill on assisted suicide, or MAID, had to be studied extensively before we moved forward with any other considerations, the government just flew right by that and immediately brought in another piece of legislation that, again, has opened it up.

I am sorry, but I do not know how much closer to death on demand it can get when a veteran is told that by someone. Yes, it was illegal, doing what they did to even suggest it because it was out of their purview. To open it up to that point is to say to someone, “You know what, with all of your issues, this would be a better alternative to your life.”

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said something, a quote that I think is haunting, profound and accurate. She quoted someone who said that we spend too much time helping people to die and not enough time helping people to live. For a government member to try to diminish what happened with veterans affairs, I find that disgusting.

I was wondering if my colleague would like to take a little more time talking about some of the really good things that she mentioned that the Canadian government should be doing to help people to live, as opposed to this measure that is front of us, which should never have been contemplated.

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

Madam Speaker, there is so much that is being left on the table in the back room, I do not know where, that is not being done, and it raises doubts in veterans' minds as to the true intent of the government in truly meeting their needs. I am serious.

We have a backlog that continues to grow, while the minister is talking about the billions of dollars we are throwing at this, and it is the same with mental health, yet things are not improving. They are getting worse.

We have a responsibility in the House to do everything we can to make life valuable. We should have top-notch palliative care across the entire nation. We should be taking care of our veterans from the moment they enlist until the moment they are successful in a civilian life after they are done serving. There are so many things that could be done by the government.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the many leading psychiatrists who have made it very clear that this expansion cannot be implemented safely, and notwithstanding the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry calling on the government to stop this expansion, the Minister of Justice, even though he has moved this bill forward, has actually said that the government could have gone ahead with this anyhow, notwithstanding that irremediability, suicidality and other legal and clinical issues remain unresolved. Does this not speak to the degree with which this minister is blinded by ideology—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That was not quite a short question, but if the hon. member could give a short answer, that would be great.

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

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

Madam Speaker, the truth of the matter is that the minister has shown his hand. He has no intention of not making this law come into effect. That is where Canadians have drawn the line.

The reason they have stalled is because they realize they are not reflecting the values and the desires of the majority of Canadians. For once, I would love to see the Liberals function as a government on behalf of Canadians.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, as we have heard this evening and throughout the day, there is no question that this is a personal issue for many of the representatives in this chamber. I can speak to that as well. When the legislation for MAID first came up two parliaments ago, I held a number of open houses and town halls in my riding, and I have never had a larger turnout than I did for doctor-assisted dying.

In fact, my colleague, whom I have a great deal of respect for, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, attended one of those open houses to help explain and walk my constituents through what this legislation meant. The biggest concern and biggest worry for my constituents at that time was the lack of strong and strict safeguards for the expansion of access to MAID. Certainly, what we are seeing now is a frightening broadening of access to MAID.

If there are any red flags for the Liberal government, it would be the fact that when MAID was first legislated in 2016, about 1,000 Canadians accessed it, and that number is now more than 36,000 in one year. If there was ever a reason for the Liberal government to stand up and take notice that this legislation has far exceeded its original intentions, that would be it. It was based on a foreseeable death, a terminal illness or someone being in unbearable pain. This is who should have been accessing MAID.

Now we are seeing those lines so blurred that they almost do not exist. The fact that the Minister of Justice has only delayed implementing access to MAID for those with mental illness is again a very stark red flag. That is why we are seeing so many Canadians stand up, and in many cases emotionally, to say that this has gone much too far. We are hearing so many anecdotes and examples, not only from our constituents but from people across the country, of people who are already accessing MAID who never should have been eligible.

A constituent of mine, Mark Meincke, who is a very well know veterans advocate, called me one afternoon and told me about a friend, a veteran, who had been on the phone with his Veterans Affairs caseworker. When he talked about his mental health issues and wanting to access mental health resources, the caseworker told him they could offer him MAID if that was something he would rather do than contemplate suicide. Actually, the caseworker's language was much starker than that.

Initially, I thought it could not be true and that Veterans Affairs could not possibly be offering MAID to the men and women in uniform who served our country and made such an incredible sacrifice that most of us could never possibly fathom it. When the heroes of our country were reaching out in their vulnerable moment, they were being offered the easy way out.

It is no wonder that many of our veterans now feel they are not getting the services they need from the federal government, because it is just too costly. The government is trying to clear a backlog of files off its desk, and that is why it is offering access to doctor-assisted dying. That is not what we should be offering our veterans, those who sacrificed everything for us. We should be ensuring they have access to the mental health care and PTSD treatments they deserve, not access to doctor-assisted dying.

Of course, this is coming from a government with a Prime Minister who said to veterans that they were just asking for more than the government could give. We can see why there is frustration and why a seed of doubt has been planted among veterans and first responders across this country.

I am glad to hear that the government took action on that one caseworker. Unfortunately, even though we were told this was a one-off, we have now heard several stories of other veterans being offered similar services from other caseworkers. As someone who has been around government for a while on both sides of the House, I know these caseworkers are usually given a script that they go by. What is worrisome is that this was not just a one-off and was something Veterans Affairs was offering our men and women in uniform.

I would urge my colleagues across the floor in the Liberal caucus to see that giving this a one-year delay is not enough. If there was ever a piece of legislation in the House of Commons that we had to get right and that we could not make mistakes on, try to rush through or base the decisions on ideology or activism, it is this one. I do not know if I have ever said this standing in the House, but lives literally hang in the balance and are at risk if we get this wrong.

I would urge my Liberal colleagues across the floor to listen to the stakeholders in their communities, to listen to the community-based service groups and charities and mental health programs in their communities that are standing up and saying, “Stop; this is going way too far.” I cannot be the only one who is getting dozens of calls and emails from those groups in my riding who are asking me to meet with them and try to relay that message and those concerns to the Liberal government. They have lost hope and, instead of providing hope for life and offering the essential resources that Canadians need, the Liberal government is offering them death.

As parliamentarians and as Canadians, is that really what we want our country to be? Is that really the bar that we are setting for ourselves? Rather than invest in palliative care and mental health services and services for our veterans and those with disabilities and mental illness, are we going to take the easy way and just make doctor-assisted dying more accessible? I do not believe that is the result we want.

A constituent of mine, Pilar, called me the other day and said, “I have worked in palliative care for several years, and in several other domains of medical care, and I can tell you, it will be the most vulnerable who will suffer the most from this, and experience undue pressure and coercion to allow the state to end their lives.” That is very profound from someone in the health care system.

I have heard similar comments from groups like Inclusion Foothills, which is a group in my riding that works with folks with disabilities, including mental and emotional. I met with the group before Christmas. Its members have a profound fear with respect to this MAID expansion of access for mental illness and concerns for their clients who have disabilities. Time and time again, they said, they were hearing from families who are concerned they may lose their loved ones because they were offered MAID in a stressful time or moment of weakness and vulnerability.

All of us have had those moments of vulnerability and anxiety and we would hope that in those times of need the services that we require would be made available to us. At Inclusion Foothills, they were saying that Canadians with cognitive disabilities or depression and anxiety are easily more susceptible to offers of coercion, well-meaning or otherwise, perceived or real, of an option to end their suffering. I know, again, that I am not the only one who has families and persons with disabilities and mental health concerns and concerned residents reaching out to my office and begging for safeguards to be put in place to protect their vulnerable loved ones, their friends and certainly our neighbours.

The Government of Canada's own website acknowledges that, “Mental illness is experienced by 1 in 3 Canadians during their lifetime” and that suicide “...is a significant cause of premature death in Canada.” The website goes on to state:

Most mental illnesses can be effectively treated by health professionals and community-based services....

Unfortunately, because of the stigma of mental illness, many people avoid or delay treatment.

The most important part of that statement is “mental illnesses can be effectively treated”. That should be the focus, and not the option of doctor-assisted dying.

Finally, I want to address another community in my riding, and that is the agriculture community and rural Canadians. A survey that was done last year said that 76% of farmers who were surveyed are suffering from medium to extreme mental health concerns and stress. Worldwide, male farmers are at higher risk of dying by suicide and they are less likely to ask for help. “Cowboy up” is what we hear all the time. In fact, we had a unanimous consent motion in this House asking for the government to provide a mandate in Farm Credit Canada's mandate to support mental health programs. The Liberals voted against that.

My constituents are unequivocal: MAID was never meant as an emotional decision; it was never meant to be outside the bounds of those as an exceptional reason. I would encourage the Liberal government not to just delay this for a year and not to put a timeline on it. Let us do this right. Let us make sure that we stand up for all Canadians with disabilities and mental illness. Let us do it right.

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

Madam Speaker, as someone who has actually served in the Canadian Forces, walked with World War II veterans and World War I veterans and sat in the legions and listened to the horror stories they had to endure, I find it exceptionally offensive to try to imply that the government would, in any way, in any form, or any member of the House—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan does not have the floor and he is not the one who will be responding to the questions and comments. I know that his colleague for Foothills is able to answer those questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not believe it is appropriate for any member of the House to try to imply, in any way or any form, that there is any member of the House of Commons who would actually suggest that it is okay for a veterans service agent to recommend MAID to a veteran.

Would the hon. member not agree with that assertion?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would agree that it is inappropriate for a case worker from Veterans Affairs to offer a veteran access to medical assistance in dying rather than the mental health resources that they need. However, Veterans Affairs, under the current government, did exactly that. For that member to just try to say that this never happened is a complete fallacy. It did not happen just once; it happened numerous times.

It is absolutely inappropriate but, unfortunately, the government did exactly that.

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

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

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

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think my hon. colleague touched on the crux of the issue. That review should have occurred. We would have had better insight into what we are dealing with right now.

The issue he is talking about, that balance, is when someone is suffering with mental illness or a disability and how difficult it is to understand if they are making that decision in the right state of mind, let us say. The Liberal government opened this door so wide, when there is no question that Canadians, at their most vulnerable moment, will be making an irreconcilable decision that they may not be making in the best position of their mental health and, certainly, the position they are in economically and financially. Most importantly, are they in the right state of mind to make such an important decision?

That is what we have to take the time to decide.

[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.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. When those numbers went from 1,000 per year to 37,000 Canadians accessing MAID, that was a severe red flag that this has gone much too far. All of us have loved ones who are impacted by mental illness or disability. This certainly hits home for all of us.

I would say that my suggestion would be not to put a timeline on this. We are putting this off for one year. My concern is that the Minister of Justice certainly does not agree with most of us in the House. He said it himself, that the government could just plow ahead and go ahead with this legislation without any additional discussion. I think that is a wrong decision. We are certainly hearing from our constituents and from Canadians that this has gone far enough.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are here tonight, at nearly 10 o'clock in Ottawa, discussing a difficult topic, but one that every Canadian should be concerned about. I would like to outline what we are talking about tonight so I can give my argument in that context.

In 2020, a bill was tabled to discuss and put forward proposals to expand medically assisted dying, and then in the other place, the Senate, there was an amendment made after committee study, and after due diligence, which the government rammed through. Without scrutiny, the government rammed through an amendment that was put forward by an unelected and unaccountable body to expand medically assisted dying to persons with mental health issues.

That bill ended up passing, and now we are here today debating an initiative that the government now wants to undertake to extend the date that service would become available to Canadians from this year and month, to a year from now.

I want to be very clear. I am going to vote in favour of extending this timeline, but under no circumstances in this country right now should medically assisted dying be extended to persons with mental health issues. For colleagues who are in the Liberal caucus who have the ability to speak to their leaders behind closed doors, our country is suffering. There are so many people who are hurting who may have had some mental health issues before the pandemic due to job loss, lack of access to services, issues that happened in relationships or so many things.

We are a country that is in the middle of a mental health crisis, yet today the most amount of time we have spent debating how we, as Parliament, and the government are going to support Canadians with mental health issues is to offer medically assisted dying. I just find it reprehensible and an abdication of responsibility of every person in here of every political stripe to allow medically assisted dying to be extended to Canadians, given the abject and miserable state of mental health supports for Canadians across this country.

Nobody can access mental health services in this country. Even privileged people have difficult times accessing mental health supports. Everybody in this country will need somebody to talk to or will go through crises, and every once in a while we get something from a corporation, such as Bell Let's Talk day, but when the rubber hits the road and somebody needs someone to talk to, those services are not adequately there, or they are too expensive. For the government to even contemplate allowing this for such people, where one of the symptoms of mental health issues is to express, in certain circumstances, wishes to die, is so irresponsible. My opinion is that we should not only delay this from coming into force for a year, but also not do it at all.

The government promised $4.5 billion for mental health services, and that is nowhere to be found. The NDP is in a supply coalition with the government. This should be number one on its list of demands. There should be no support of medically assisted dying without some sort of plan to address the lack of staff in mental health support services, the burnout in mental health services and the lack of funding. In my province of Alberta, the amount of funding the government just offered the Province of Alberta, $500 million, in this last round of talks was about the same it spent on airport COVID testing after it had lifted restrictions for airport COVID tests.

The government has its priorities all wrong. This is not just about spending or waste. This is people's lives. It is suggesting that we should be extending medically assisted dying at a time when we have not even begun talking about destigmatizing mental health issues. There are a lot of people who would never talk about it. They feel like it is a shame to struggle. They do not have someone to talk to or have a support network. As parliamentarians, we are contemplating normalizing offering medically assisted dying. How did we get to this point? How did the government even think this was appropriate? It even snuck it in on a Senate amendment. No. We should be pushing this deadline off.

My colleague from British Columbia tabled a bill to remove this provision and I support his legislation 100%. It is smart, it is compassionate and it should receive cross-party support. There is nobody in here who can argue, with a straight face, that the mental health support services for Canadians are anywhere close to adequate at all. It is our duty, as parliamentarians, to give people hope to live. That is our first goal.

That is what we should be doing, not sitting in some academic chamber listening to people argue legal technicalities around maybe something means medically assisted dying. We have to have a moral compass sometimes in this place. There is no way this should proceed in Canada. Even my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands talked about the explosive use of MAID and the slippery slope that actually happened. It was not a logical fallacy in debate. We have evidence of it. There are no safeguards and there are no supports to help Canadians make the choice to live.

I am begging everybody in this place, first and foremost, help Canadians live. We need to help Canadians live by pushing this off and by supporting my colleague from B.C.'s bill. We should not even need this private member's bill. We should not be wasting time in the House of Commons pushing this decision off for a year. We should not even be talking about it at all. We should be debating late in the night about how we give Canadians the support they need.

In a CBC article from February 2, the justice minister was quoted talking about why he wanted to extend it for a year. It was not for any of the reasons that I gave or colleagues of other political stripes have talked about. He said, “We want, in particular, those health practitioners, those faculties of medicine, colleges who had some concerns to have the time to internalize what is happening.”

His concern and motive for delaying this was not to protect Canadians. It was to foist this ideology upon our top medical practitioners at a time when they are burnt out, suffering and underfunded after two years of a pandemic and a woefully broken health care system. There is no way we should be extending medically assisted dying to mental health in Canada given how broken our health care system is and the lack of hope Canadians have right now. It is our job to be offering them hope and to be doing everything possible for Canadians who have mental health issues to have that hope.

For anybody who is listening to this tonight, there are so many lines out there. If someone is struggling with mental health issues, they can reach out and know that there are people in this place who understand that everyone has a right to live. They have a right to live with dignity, with hope and with compassion, and that is what we are fighting for. That is why there are people of differing ideologies in this place who will fight tooth and nail to get the government to focus on what is good, just and beautiful.

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

Madam Speaker, I would concur that there are many ways in which people can access the types of supports that are out there, and it would be good to see more support going into mental illness, health and well-being. We hope that is what we will seeing with our provincial and territorial governments, and work with our different communities, rural or urban. The issue I have is when we take a look at the legislation, the legislation is proposing a pause. There will be some time for members to continue to reflect on and hear what health care professionals and experts have to say.

To what degree should health care experts and other stakeholders play a role in this debate?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg just said that he would hope that we would have more resources for mental health. He is part of the government. He has a government appointment. He sits around the table.

We do not have those supports because the government has not provided them to Canadians. Honestly, he is listening, and he should think about this. This is not a talking point. His government has not got the job done, and that is why we are here. This should not be a pause. We should not be talking about this. This should not happen.

When it comes to his question about medical professionals, we have medical professionals. We have got all sorts of groups from disability experts to indigenous leaders saying there is no way this should be offered in Canada. What we should be focusing on is helping people to live with hope and dignity, something that the government has not yet done. That is why the government should not be proposing this at all. Based on science, based on morality and based on any outcome right now, we should not be offering medically assisted dying to Canadians with mental health issues.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier the member from Winnipeg talked about how we all agree that it was wrong that a staffer at Veterans Affairs Canada was talking about euthanasia with a veteran who called looking for help. He asked if we do not all agree on that.

I think what confuses me about the government's position is that apparently it objects to the fact that over and over again, when a veteran called in for help at Veterans Affairs Canada, they were told to consider euthanasia or medical assistance in dying, yet if that same veteran had gone to see a psychiatrist or visited a nurse practitioner, the government would be totally fine with that person being given that advice. The government is fine with people being told by the medical system that they should consider or pursue this option, just apparently not when it comes from Veterans Affairs.

Does the member think there is an inconsistency in the government's position that we should be supporting people in all cases, regardless?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, that cuts a little close to home for me. My husband is a combat veteran. I know what it is like when he casually tells me that one of his colleagues that he served with has taken their own life.

This is not a joke. We should not be offering medically assisted dying as the first intervention of Parliament, which is what the government would be doing, instead of telling Canadians they are worthy, they have value and our government is here to help them with their needs, be it a veteran, be it somebody who has lost their job or somebody going through divorce. We should be offering hope, value and dignity, not medically assisted dying for people with mental health issues.

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

Madam Speaker, would my hon. friend from Calgary Nose Hill support one of the things that many of us in opposition are calling for, which is a guaranteed livable income, so that no one would be in such a desperate state that they would actually think of taking their own life because of economic pressures.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, the government has spent us into oblivion. Our government has put us into a situation where we are broke. Talking about all the things that could help Canadians is so much farther away because of the waste, the corruption and the lack of priorities on Canadians.

There are so many things we could be talking about and should be talking about to help Canadians, but the first thing we need to do is get the government out of the way. I cannot even believe that this proposal is on the floor.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place to talk about this important issue facing Canadians, being signalled last week and coming into debate today, and to understand the gravity of the conversation that is Bill C-39. We have before us a bill that presses pause, a one-year pause, on the implementation of the state being able to, through a medical assistance in dying regime, see individuals take their own life for the sole underlying cause of having a mental illness. It is moments like this where one has no option but to pause and think about the gravity of the issues that we discuss here.

Certainly, when it comes to this delay, I support it. I think that a year is not nearly long enough, and like many other colleagues, I believe that a delay simply does not go far enough regarding something that should never be on the table.

When it comes to mental health, we have heard today something that has been mentioned a lot, the idea of hope, the fact that we need hope, and offering death to someone who feels hopeless is not hope. I find it very troubling and a tragic irony that over the course of the time that I have had the honour and responsibility of serving the people of Battle River—Crowfoot we have talked a lot about suicide prevention and mental health. I think back to one of the debates that took place during my nomination campaign. I made a simple statement that I did not realize would have the effect it does today. It was when I and the other nomination contestants in Wainwright, which is home to a military base, were asked a general question about what was required for mental health. It was a productive discussion, but one of the statements I made in response to that was that I believed mental health is health. A young man came up to me afterward, the child of a veteran, and said he was so encouraged by the fact that somebody finally was willing to say that mental health was health.

I cannot emphasize enough how vitally important that context is to the discussions we are having around Bill C-39, and specifically the honour I have of representing a military base. The fact that there are veterans who have called Veterans Affairs asking for help yet were offered death defies what I thought was possible. The reality is that in this country we need to make sure we prioritize hope. When we look at the context of where we got to, this bill is happening a whole lot faster than the three-digit suicide hotline that this Parliament unanimously called for more than a year ago. Where political will exists things can move quickly, but unfortunately when it comes to the idea of help, health care for those struggling with suicidal thoughts, and ensuring that those who have mental health challenges are given the care they need, we have before us a bill that simply delays for one year the offer of death.

I have reflected much on this issue, although being elected in 2019. In much of the debate that took place over medical assistance in dying, we were told that the concerns raised by many members, both those who sit in the Conservative caucus today and others, including but not limited to the former attorney general and I believe representatives from all parties represented in this place, were simply considered a slippery slope, a logical fallacy, yet here we are.

In fact, in the context of this discussion, a story was sent to me, which I would like to read in this place: “Recently, my friend's mother, Carmen, was a victim of a physician attempting to coerce her into MAID. She was quite insistent on it, to the point of causing severe distress. His main point of sale was that it would save the hospital a lot of money, and it was her duty to do the right thing for the hospital and her family to just do it.”

I could not think of a circumstance where somebody would be more vulnerable, dealing with the challenges associated with mental health and some of the challenges associated with underlying health conditions, as was the case with this individual. Instead of being given that opportunity for life, it was presented as a duty to save the state a few dollars and to save her family from having to journey beside her through an illness.

The folks from Battle River—Crowfoot will know very well my faith background. I often think of some of the Bible verses that I was taught as a child and remember here today. I would like to read one here today, which is certainly one that has offered me hope during challenging times. It is Jeremiah 29:11. I think that many in the House will have heard this verse before. It goes, “For I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord. They are plans for good and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.”

As we enter into the discussion around the idea of whether or not somebody who is facing a challenging circumstance in their life and facing the challenges of mental health distress, to the point where they would be led to or, heaven forbid, coerced into making an irreversible decision such as medically assisted death, let us remember, as others in this place have mentioned, that as members of Parliament, as leaders in this country, and certainly as members of the government across the way, we should always endeavour to be catalysts for hope. We should ensure that, whether it be in partisan discussions, which members in the House will know well I love to participate in, or whether it be in coming to the assistance of those who walk through my office door in Battle River—Crowfoot, we do everything we can to extend the hope that is so desperately needed.

As we have this discussion, as we have this now one-year pause on the implementation of mental health being the sole underlying factor for medically assisted death, let us pause and think very carefully, not only as parliamentarians but as a country, as a society, as those who are called to look out for the most vulnerable among us, whether that be indigenous people, immigrants, women and the list goes on, to ensure that we respond not with the extension of a mechanism that would allow somebody to take their own life, but for those who are facing the most severe mental health challenges, let us ensure that our automatic response would be to offer that olive branch of hope.

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

Madam Speaker, since the Supreme Court decision in 2015 and going into 2016, the government has been working very closely with members on all sides of the House, even today, in passing legislation. It takes more than just government members to pass legislation.

I suspect that virtually all members will be supporting and voting in favour of this legislation because they see the value in what the government is proposing, which is to put off and ultimately delay things for a year so we can feel more comfortable in making sure we are getting things right.

Does the member acknowledge that the Government of Canada has appointed a task group of experts to develop MAID practice standards in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, regulatory bodies and clinicians across Canada? Does the member feel that those organizations and stakeholders should have any say in the future of MAID legislation?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, given the very bureaucratic explanation the parliamentary secretary just read, what bears mentioning is the tragic irony that exists here.

We are debating the extension of medical assistance in dying to those with mental illness as the sole underlying condition, yet this House unanimously, only a number of years ago, passed a motion to bring about a 988 suicide prevention hotline, which certainly seems to be progressing at a snail's pace. Canadians do not need more bureaucratic language, more task forces and more excuses from a government that is refusing to acknowledge that instead of the expansion of medically assisted death by the state to those with mental illness, we should be talking about ensuring that all Canadians have hope to live for the future.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot of talk tonight about the need for support, so I will ask the member about that. In the year, potentially, during which there is time for additional consultations, and I hope the government will listen to the outcomes of those consultations, what kind of financial supports would the member suggest?

On the NDP side, we would like to see pharmacare. We think that people being healthy and able to afford their medication is important. Affordable housing is another opportunity to increase supports for folks. I wonder if the member could expand on some of the opportunities in the next year.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that in the calls I have taken specifically over the last eight months or so, it seems there has been a real pickup in the number of seniors, single parents and women endeavouring to get out of difficult situations who, when going to the grocery store, are not able to afford the bare minimum that it takes to feed themselves and often their families.

We need to make sure we have a compassionate approach to welfare in this country to ensure that the most vulnerable get support. We also need to make sure that every opportunity for Canadians to succeed is granted to them. I often see in this place that this is being denied to Canadians. I see that in my own constituency.

The member has supported the shutdown and loss of tens of thousands of jobs in my constituency. Let us take a pause, and instead of promoting plans that would worsen the economic circumstances for many Canadians, like those promoted through the just transition the Prime Minister is pushing for, let us make sure we provide hope and opportunity for absolutely every Canadian. Let us make sure we are there to support those who need help when they need it most.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate.

There being no further members rising for debate, pursuant to order made earlier today, the debate is deemed adjourned and the House is deemed adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 10:24 p.m.)

The House resumed from February 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-39, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for a balanced presentation on this issue.

I think his concern about the availability of mental health services is entirely fair. However, I do take issue with one thing the member said, which is that he held open the possibility of medical assistance in dying being an option for someone with a treatable mental illness. That is not the legislation. The legislation limits the right to medical assistance in dying to those who have an irremediable condition. Therefore, the fear that someone with a treatable condition would be able to avail themselves of medical assistance in dying is one that will not materialize.

As for the availability of mental health supports, the member would be well aware of the successful negotiation between the Government of Canada and the provinces for a substantial infusion of cash. This will absolutely increase the level of service available to Canadians with respect to mental health services.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of our concerns right from the beginning was the slippery slope of how this could move forward if the proper safeguards were not put in place.

I would say, the majority of mental health issues can be healed, fixed and treated, and when the first forum came out in terms of what they were doing, they looked at the imminent death of an individual. However, I realize that by adding more and more categories to this, we would get on a very slippery slope. For those who are treatable, we believe they should receive treatment and not death.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that people should not be induced to turn to medical assistance in dying in moments of weakness. I do not know where he is getting that from, but I just want to say that the expert panel's report on mental disorder makes no mention of that. When it comes to socio-economic determinants, which my colleague raised, the experts say that they need to be taken into account but that they are not part of the criteria for having access to medical assistance in dying.

I am not sure what he is talking about, but one thing is certain. Members need to stop using scare tactics all the time. Basically, the Conservatives are against medical assistance in dying in every situation, not just in the case of mental disorder. Many of them are even opposed to it when a person is terminally ill and already dying.

I would like to say to my colleague that, if he knows of any cases where a person has been induced to seek medical assistance in dying, then he must report them. The Criminal Code would apply, the police would intervene and those people would be brought to justice.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that it has been one of the challenges. We have heard of people calling Veterans Affairs looking for services and being recommended to consider MAID as an option. Therefore, I do not think it is reasonable to say that it does not happen, and this is the challenge when we do not have the proper safeguards.

As I said before, it is about safeguards, and our caucus varies across the board in terms of where we are at on this. I personally never supported MAID, but I understand that, in irremediable situations where there is pain and imminent death, there may be choices. However, I am very concerned that people who are down on their luck, having a hard time or concerned about being a burden to society could consider a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-39, an act to amend an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to medical assistance in dying, which was introduced by the Minister of Justice on February 2.

Through this bill, our government is seeking to extend the timeline that will expand eligibility for MAID where the sole underlying medical condition identified in support of the request is a mental disorder.

Our government is committed to ensuring that the MAID framework is prudent, well‑thought‑out and rigorous so that the assessment and provision of medical assistance in dying is safe. At this point, we believe that delaying the repeal of the exclusion is the best way to achieve these objectives.

It is crucial to strike a balance between promoting the autonomy of those seeking a dignified end and protecting the interests of those most vulnerable in our society. Our government believes that this is the right decision given the inherent complexities of MAID requests that are based only on a mental disorder.

My comments will focus on the current MAID framework, including eligibility criteria and existing Criminal Code protections, and on the broad range of opinions from the public, the medical establishment and other experts, in particular the organizations representing persons living with a mental health disorder.

At present, to be eligible for MAID, an individual must meet five criteria.

All applicants must be eligible for health services funded by the Government of Canada, be at least 18 years of age and capable of making informed decisions relating to their health, have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, have requested MAID voluntarily and not as a result of external pressure, and provide informed consent to receive MAID after being informed of available means to relieve their suffering.

As I just mentioned, one of the criteria is a grievous and irremediable medical condition, which means that the person must have a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability; that their medical situation is characterized by an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; that their illness, disease or disability or advanced state of irreversible decline in their capability causes them to experience enduring intolerable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be relieved under conditions that the person considers acceptable.

In addition to these eligibility criteria, the Criminal Code also provides two sets of procedural safeguards that must be met before MAID can be provided. The first set of safeguards addresses situations where death is reasonably foreseeable, and the second, more stringent set applies to requests for MAID where death is not foreseeable.

The safeguards for MAID requests where death is reasonably foreseeable include that the request must be made in writing and signed before an independent witness, as well as that the person must be informed that they may, at any time and in any manner, withdraw their request.

There are four additional safeguards when death is not reasonably foreseeable. This is because these MAID requests are more complex than when death is reasonably foreseeable. The four additional criteria are as follows.

A second physician or nurse practitioner must confirm in writing that the person meets the eligibility criteria. There must be at least 90 days between the first MAID assessment and the date on which MAID is administered. The person must be informed of alternative available means to alleviate their suffering, such as counselling services, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care, and offered consultations with relevant professionals who provide those services. Finally, both physicians or nurse practitioners must agree that the person has given serious consideration to those means.

If this bill is not passed, requests for medical assistance in dying where the sole underlying medical condition is mental health will become available on March 17, 2023.

I will now briefly discuss some of the concerns that we have heard regarding the upcoming expansion. In their May 2022 submission to the Special Joint Committee on MAID, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health expressed that “Before eligibility is extended, there must be thoughtful and inclusive discussions to develop consensus definitions of irremediableness and suicidality.” We believe that the extra year will allow for the necessary consideration of these important topics.

In addition, in November, the Canadian Psychiatric Association issued a statement in favour of delaying the repeal of the exclusion from medical assistance in dying in cases where a person's sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. The CPA is of the opinion that more time is needed to improve education on suicide prevention and access to mental health and addiction services; to develop an expert-approved definition of the irremediability of different mental disorders; and to develop approaches and procedures to help clinicians distinguish between suicide and access to medical assistance in dying.

In December, the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention also issued some observations in support of the delay. It would like more research to be done into the prognosis of mental disorders in order to draw conclusions on the irremediability of any mental disorder, which is a legal requirement within our MAID framework.

Many of these concerns were raised during the hearings of the Special Joint Committee on MAID, which was established to undertake a review of the Criminal Code MAID provisions and other related topics, including mental illness. The committee’s final report was released this week. One of the reasons for the extension is so that the government can seriously consider the recommendations of this committee.

The government believes that extending the exclusion of mental illnesses is necessary to ensure that MAID is provided appropriately in all circumstances where a mental illness is the sole medical condition for requesting MAID.

I hope that all members will join me in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, when members had the special joint committee, they had a great deal of consultation with many different stakeholders. A lot of evidence was provided. Earlier today, the Chair presented the report. It is worth recognizing that a majority of the political parties inside this House seem to support Bill C-39.

Can the member comment on whether the extensive discussions and dialogue that have occurred have in fact improved our system? Could she add value to anything I have said?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and comments. As he said, the report was tabled this afternoon.

During discussions at the Special Joint Committee on MAID, we heard from a wide range of partners, associations and people who had concerns. The discussions led us to make the decision to extend the delay for those whose sole medical condition is a mental illness. That way, we will have time to set things up properly and ensure that doctors and nurse practitioners are ready to provide MAID under these conditions. Things must be done properly to respect autonomy and freedom of choice.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if my colleague believes that one year will be enough time for the government to ensure that this bill is as perfect as possible.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this important question. There have been discussions on this issue. Should expanding MAID to people with mental disorders be delayed by six months, nine months or twelve months?

With guidance from the Minister of Justice and his team, and keeping in mind what we have heard, we do believe that one year will be sufficient, especially since the expert panel is already developing an accreditation program and standards of practice.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like to know more about her perception of what the Conservative members are doing, since they seem to be fearmongering. It could even be described as spreading misinformation.

The Conservatives are suggesting that anyone with a mental health issue could request and be eligible for medical assistance in dying.

I wonder if my colleague could explain why this rhetoric is false. I would also like her to tell us what she thinks of the approach that the official opposition is taking.

[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.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-39, which would delay, by one year, the Liberal government's goal of extending medically facilitated death to Canadians living with mental illness.

Extending medically facilitated death to vulnerable Canadians living with mental illness is unjust now and it will be unjust one year from now.

The government's MAID policy has been driven by radical groups. Their end goal is state-provided death on demand to anyone for any reason. These groups have almost constant and unfettered access to the Liberal government, and this is clear because this extreme expansion is backed by radicals within the Liberal government and Liberal-appointed radicals within the Senate.

At the MAID committee, one of this sort remarked that MAID should be available for babies. How far has our collective respect for dignity of the human person fallen that such a grisly statement could be made without rebuke? Many have said that we are at the end of a slippery slope, but it is clear that if the Liberals continue to take their marching orders from groups like this, they are nowhere near done.

By law, to be eligible for MAID, a person must have a grievous and irremediable medical condition that is incurable and in an advanced state of irreversible decline. That means that, to qualify, a MAID assessor must be satisfied that the person's condition will not get better. We know it is impossible to predict whether or not a person suffering from a mental illness will get better, so it is not possible to determine irremediability.

Dr. John Maher, a clinical psychiatrist and medical ethicist, said, “Psychiatrists don't know and can't know who will get better and live decades of good life. Brain diseases are not liver diseases.”

MAID decisions in cases of mental disorders will be based on “hunches and guesswork that could be wildly inaccurate”, according to Dr. Mark Sinyor, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto and a psychiatrist who specializes in the treatment of adults with complex mood and anxiety disorders. He also said that “they could be making an error 2% of the time or 95% of the time.”

The Liberal government is willing to say that Canadians with mental illness will not get better and then will end their lives, which could be wrong 95% of the time. Make no mistake, if the government goes ahead with its expansion of MAID for mental illness, people who would have gotten better will not get the chance, because they will be dead.

Right now, 6,000 people with the most severe forms of mental illness are waiting up to five years to get the specialized treatments they need to reduce symptoms, learn to cope and feel better. Instead of working to better those symptoms, to give people the help they need when they need it the most, the government is striving to offer them death.

When appearing before the Senate, Dr. John Maher said, “Clinical relationships are already being profoundly undermined. My patients are saying: ‘Why try to recover when MAID is coming, and I'm going to be able to choose death?’” He goes on to say, “Some of my patients keep asking for MAID while they're actually getting better but can't recognize that yet.”

We need to offer Canadians hope, and not death, when they are in the depths of despair. Under the Liberal government, a wave of hopelessness has spread to every corner of the country, and we are seeing people seeking and being approved for medically facilitated death because they are poor, because they cannot afford adequate care or housing. It has even gotten to the point that veterans have been offered death instead of treatment and support. We must ensure that the dignity of the human person is respected and considered as a foundational block for our society if it is to be a just society.

We have seen the respect for human life, and especially the lives of vulnerable Canadians, threatened by the current government's MAID regime, and that should be weighed against the standard of a society that is right and just, and that measures whether their actions and policies enhance or threaten the dignity inherent in every single person. This is not a dignity that was invented, imagined or assigned by a government, but it can be affirmed or denied.

What we are seeing in Canada is a government that is willing to offer death before it is willing to offer adequate care, access to timely treatment or even a life that is affordable to live. People are asking food banks to help them access death. It is an absolute disgrace that life in Canada has come to that.

That is why the preferential option for the vulnerable must be in mind as we make any decision in this place. Does this protect, or attack, the vulnerable? Does this enhance, or threaten, the dignity of the vulnerable? Does this lift up the vulnerable, or marginalize them further? These are the questions that have to be asked. When it comes to the Liberal government's MAID regime, I will say that it attacks and threatens the vulnerable, threatens their human dignity and marginalizes them further. How could it not, when death is the solution offered to the problems of the most vulnerable people among us?

Throughout this entire process, the government has tried to silence the voices of marginalized Canadians, especially those living with disabilities or mental illness, but it will not silence my voice here today. It will not silence the voices of Conservatives who stand here united in our opposition to expanding medically assisted death for mental illness.

Death is not an acceptable solution to mental illness and psychological suffering. Our health care system should help people. It should help them find the hope and resilience they need in order to live, and not facilitate their deaths. We continue to be, as we always have been, called to attend to the lives of the most vulnerable people and their preferential option in life. That is to listen to them, to include them, to support them, to lift them up, to help them and to love them, not to end their lives.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address what could only most charitably be described as cognitive dissonance in that speech. When we talk about things like trying to institute a basic income so people can live with dignity and get the help and support that they require, or when we talk about spending more on health in order to be able to create the services that people require in order to live the life the member describes, he opposes those things. Dental care, for Pete's sake, is something that his party has opposed. That is what people living with disabilities require in order to get the services they need and to live with the dignity they need.

Therefore, I am having a hard time reconciling his speech about how we have to pay special attention to the most vulnerable and people living with disabilities, with the position he takes outside this debate on many other important matters. Maybe the member would like to speak to that.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am having a really hard time reconciling how that member and his party prop up a government that did absolutely nothing to increase health care transfers to our provinces, and a Prime Minister whom he supports, without exception, in a coalition deal until 2025, in which the Prime Minister, the leader of the NDP—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes has the floor.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this member and his party give carte blanche to a Prime Minister who has been an abject failure in supporting the health care needs of our provinces, and that is whom the member votes to support.

While we have been very clear about our position on improving health care supports, treatment supports and mental health supports, that member is supporting a Prime Minister who has done anything but, and who refused to even meet with the premiers and the health ministers. That is what I am having a hard time reconciling.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think a key distinction in this legislation is the difference between mental health and mental illness. People could have one or the other or both. Can the member opposite explain whether he understands this difference and why it is relevant to this legislation?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly important that we provide the support. That should be the focus of the government. What it is undertaking with this process is not a requirement but a rapid and unnecessary expansion. Frankly, it devalues the human person and those who are living with any of the challenges the member opposite mentioned. It is incredibly important that we find ways to support those people to help them heal instead of finding ways to accelerate their deaths.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I contend that the process we are going through right now calls for a dose of humility. I tend to believe the scientists. I prefer to put my faith in these exceptional people who have accumulated very high-level training. They have the distinct advantage of being able to contribute everything we need to ensure that the bill before us is as precise, detailed and scientific as possible.

I would like my colleague to comment on his faith in our scientists. I do not think anyone in the House would claim to possess the depth and breadth of knowledge it takes to decide what is good and what is not, what is acceptable and what is not. We have scientists to do that for us. Our job is to give them the right to work on this.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to some of the words of an expert I quoted. Dr. John Maher, who is a clinical psychiatrist and medical ethicist, said that “Psychiatrists don't know and can't know who will get better and live decades of good life.” We had another expert say that they “could be making an error 2% of the time or 95% of the time.”

It is so important to make sure that, in matters of life and death, we are correct 100% of the time. We have to stand up for life.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to speak to this extremely important bill, Bill C-39, an act to amend an act to amend the Criminal Code on medical assistance in dying. Bill C-39 would delay by one year the inclusion of mental illness as a sole underlying condition for eligibility to access medical assistance in dying.

I am truly disturbed by where we find ourselves as a country today. We were once a beacon of light to the world, offering hope, opportunity, community and compassion to all. However, we are quickly becoming a place where the darkness of death threatens the light of our nation. We are offering death as a solution to despair and taking the easier, cheaper way out instead of the narrow, harder path. The narrow, compassionate path requires courage and hard work to create support for those who are struggling and desperate for hope.

When the government first introduced the medical assistance in dying regime in 2016, many sounded the alarm. They said it was a slippery slope that would open the door to abuse, and the vulnerable in society would pay the price with their lives. The government assured Canadians that this would never happen; there would be safeguards put in place with strict criteria, and the most vulnerable would always be protected. However, here we are today deliberating on extending assisted dying to those whose sole illness is one of mental health.

This is sadly ironic because during the last election campaign, the Liberals promised $4.5 billion in mental health funding, which we have yet to see. Our society has invested billions in embarking on awareness campaigns to bring dignity to those suffering from mental health issues. We have entire days dedicated to mental health. We have worked tirelessly in society to destigmatize mental health issues. We voted unanimously in this House for a mental health hotline, yet here we are contemplating how the government can legalize taking the life of a person who is lost in the depths of a mental illness.

I believe deep down inside that we are all disturbed by the idea that MAID can be extended to the mentally ill. I believe that members of this House and the government know in their hearts that it is wrong for a government to abandon the most vulnerable among us in their time of need. They know it is wrong to promise mental health supports and then offer assisted dying instead.

What is so sad is that they try to justify it by saying that it is only for those individuals whose mental health is incurable. However, drug addiction, alcohol addiction, the loss of a loved one, broken families, broken relationships, the loss of a job and the inability to support oneself are all real situations that many Canadians are now facing. They could all propel an individual to the darkest depths of their soul. When people find themselves in the depths of despair, lacking the support of friends and family, this precise moment is when it is important for governments to be the beacon of hope and provide support.

The Minister of Justice assures us that individuals who suffer from mental health issues and are suicidal will not be considered for MAID. That statement is a tautological paradox. A person who is in the depths of mental illness and wants to end their life is, by definition, suicidal. When a person cannot cope mentally, their government has abandoned them and they have no prospect of obtaining help, and they decide to take their life, they are not of sound mind.

They do not have the mental capacity to give meaningful consent to ending their life. They are in desperate need of help.

I say it another way: It is near impossible to separate those with suicidal ideations from those with irremediable mental health conditions. Ninety per cent of people who commit suicide today, in fact, have diagnosable mental disorders. That is why it is utterly unconscionable that, one year from now, we could offer death as treatment to those who are suffering from mental health issues.

This option will be abused in the future. MAID has already been abused, with few safeguards currently in place. There have been countless stories of abuse, including stories of elderly, disabled, marginalized and mentally ill Canadians, even veterans, who have fallen through the cracks of care and have become victims of Canada's permissive MAID regime. Here are some of the headlines across our country and across the world that comment on the MAID regime:

“‘Hunger Games style social Darwinism’: Why disability advocates are worried about new assisted suicide laws” is from Niagara This Week.

“Former paralympian tells MPs veterans department offered her assisted death” is from CBC News.

“Homeless, hopeless man to seek medically assisted death” is from Barrie Today.

“Normalizing Death as ‘treatment’ in Canada: Whose Suicides Do We Prevent, and Whose Do We Abet?” is from the World Medical Journal.

“What Euthanasia Has Done to Canada” is from the New York Times.

“‘Disturbing’: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws” is from the Associated Press.

“Why is Canada euthanising the poor?” is from The Spectator in the U.K.

The government needs to read those headlines and generally consider the totality of the evidence. It is clear that there is no way to safely expand MAID to mental illness.

The government heard the evidence presented at the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. Experts said that it is “difficult, if not impossible” to determine whether someone is suffering from a mental illness and whether they will get better.

Our country is in a mental health crisis. Record numbers of Canadians are struggling with mental health issues that have been exacerbated by COVID.

To push forward with expansion at all is an abdication by this government of its responsibility to provide sufficient social, financial, mental health and suicide prevention supports to our most vulnerable. It is to abandon anyone who is suffering from mental illness.

The darkest hour is just before the dawn. To those suffering with mental illness, we must be the hope of the dawn in the dark night of despair.

We have the resources to wrap our arms around every person in Canada suffering from mental health issues and to embrace and enfold them in the promise of a brighter future, investing in life and dignity for all Canadians.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I have three questions for the hon. member.

First, does she understand that someone who does not have the capacity to make a decision regarding MAID is ineligible for MAID?

Second, does she understand that in order for someone to be eligible for MAID, they must be informed of available and appropriate means to relieve their suffering, including counselling services, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care, as well as being offered consultations with professionals who provide these services?

Third, is she aware that in order for someone to be eligible for MAID, they and the practitioners must have discussed reasonable and available means to relieve the person's suffering and agree that the person has seriously considered those means?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hope my hon. friend is aware of the simple fact that those who are suffering from mental illness, those who are in the darkest part of their life and whose government has abandoned them, do not have the capacity to choose MAID, because they are in desperate need of help that their government needs to provide. Those individuals need life and help over assisted dying.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague. I do not agree with her principles at all. She said that it was an easy choice. Medical assistance in dying is not an easy choice. On the contrary, it is a question of dignity.

For the past five years, the Bloc Québécois has been participating in consultations on medical assistance in dying. It is a right to die with dignity, of one's free will and with the least possible amount of suffering. Therefore, I disagree. When people say they want to support very ill individuals, support might mean offering them assistance in dying while surrounded by their loved ones.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did not speak today about individuals who are on artificial means and at the end of life. I did not speak about individuals who had living will directives. What I spoke about was the extension of MAID to those who are mentally incapable and the abdication of the government in providing the necessary supports to help those who are most vulnerable make the decision to continue a life in dignity.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the ways we can help people who are suffering and who may at some point consider medical assistance in dying is by supporting the establishment of a Canada disability benefit and supporting the level of income that this benefit would deliver to be something that raises people out of poverty. New Democrats have suggested, for instance, that the level of that benefit should be set at $2,200 a month to ensure that people living with a disability actually have the means to live with dignity, to afford a roof over their head and to afford to feed themselves and their families. Is this something the member supports?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives support supporting our most vulnerable, and we believe that among those are individuals who are suffering from mental health issues. They deserve all of the supports needed to help them get through this dark time in their lives.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question from the member for Elmwood—Transcona, because there are many members in this place who are talking about people deserving a dignified life, and people with disabilities certainly deserve that. There is an important call for the governing party to fund the Canada disability benefit. Does the member for Haldimand—Norfolk join us in that call?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his concern and compassion over the most vulnerable. The most pressing thing right now in order to make sure MAID is not extended to those with mental health issues is to make sure the Liberals live up to their promise of caring for those with mental health issues, and that is not through providing assisted dying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is limited knowledge about the long-term prognosis for many conditions, and it is difficult, if not impossible, for clinicians to make accurate predictions about the future for an individual patient.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, virtually all medical health experts contend that mental illness is not irremediable. Why the delay for a year? What is going to change in this next year that should not be dealt with right now?

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

Madam Speaker, the question is whether we can get it right in a year. I have to ask this back: Can we ever get something like this right? It is incalculable that we have come so far. We have not gone down a slippery slope; we have jumped off a ledge.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have seen how slippery this slope has become with what I would call a botched expansion of MAID by the Liberal government.

A few short years ago, MAID was seen as a procedure that would be used in exceptional circumstances and that would require very strict criteria to be placed around it. Now MAID is being administered under increasingly questionable and concerning circumstances. The criteria has become looser and is wildly subjective, and many of the safeguards that once existed seem to have evaporated.

The recent scandal at Veterans Affairs around medical assistance in dying has revealed how bad the Liberals rushed and mismanaged it, and, I would say, how careless the expansion of MAID has become. Since Canada's inception, our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces have fought and sacrificed to defend freedoms here at home and all around the world. Whether that be on the ground, in the air or at sea, they have done so with valour and distinction. In doing so, many of them endure physical, psychological or other injuries during their service.

There is nothing that we as Canadians can do to fully repay them for what they have done for Canada, but at the very least, it is incumbent upon us to remember and honour their sacrifices and ensure that when they transition out of service, they are fully supported and cared for as veterans. Sadly, under the Liberal government, Veterans Affairs Canada has fallen into disrepair. I have heard from many veterans that Veterans Affairs Canada feels more like an insurance company focused on reducing its financial liability and placing an unfair onus on veterans to have to prove their disabilities or illnesses over and over again.

I can think of a lot of examples, but one of the worst examples I can think of is a veteran I met who is in a wheelchair. He is missing both of his legs from his time serving our country, and every single year, he has to prove to Veterans Affairs that he is still missing his legs. Can anyone imagine what it must feel like for that veteran to prove every single year to Veterans Affairs that he is still missing his legs and is required to have a wheelchair because he served this country? That should never be the case.

I can think of another veteran who has been fighting Veterans Affairs Canada for years to have a wheelchair lift installed in her home. She is in a wheelchair because of her service, and she simply wants a wheelchair lift installed in her home. She has faced repeated delays and denials, and she still does not have the wheelchair lift she needs in order to access her home. She is forced to crawl across her driveway and up and down her stairs because of that. Is that what a veteran deserves after a life of service?

When I thought about the context there, I was that much more alarmed and disturbed when Global News broke a story last summer about an anonymous veteran who had been pressured to consider medical assistance in dying by Veterans Affairs Canada. We learned that the veteran had gone to Veterans Affairs Canada seeking help and support for injuries that he sustained while he was serving in our armed forces.

Initially, he was experiencing positive improvements in his mental and physical health. To him and his family, that must have been very promising. Then he got a call from a Veterans Affairs service agent who suggested that he consider medical assistance in dying.

The service agent brought the suggestion up repeatedly, even after the veteran asked her to stop. The service agent further asserted that she had helped another veteran successfully access medical assistance in dying and that the veteran had gone through with the procedure and was now deceased. In describing how she helped this veteran access medical assistance in dying, she concluded that it was preferable to traditional forms of suicide, like, as she said, “blowing [your] brains out all over the wall or driving [your] car into something.”

After learning about those accusations, the Conservatives demanded that the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his officials come before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and answer for those appalling accusations. The minister came to the committee about this disturbing incident and indicated that it was, in his claim, isolated to one employee and was not indicative of a pattern of behaviour or a systemic issue. In fact, between the minister and his officials, they described the incident as isolated six different times. However, later in that very same meeting, they admitted that there was a second case involving the same employee.

That did not quite seem right either, so we asked the minister and his officials to come back to the committee, and the very night before the minister came back to testify that second time, another anonymous veteran came forward. He told the Operation Tango Romeo Trauma Recovery podcast that he too had been offered medical assistance in dying by Veterans Affairs Canada and that he too had felt pressured. This employee told the veteran, in the veteran's recollection, that they could help end his suffering because they had helped someone else end their suffering.

The next day at the veterans affairs committee, the minister confirmed that he was now aware of four cases involving one employee, but those did not include the allegations that were made the evening before on the Operation Tango Romeo podcast. Now we are talking about a situation where, after being told it was an isolated incident, we are aware of five different instances of this happening with two different Veterans Affairs employees at minimum. When we called on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to fire the employee who was involved in this, he refused to answer the questions, only saying instead that this employee was no longer in direct contact with veterans.

However, it got worse from there. Another veteran, Christine Gauthier, came to testify before the veterans affairs committee on something completely unrelated, but she revealed that she too had been offered medical assistance in dying. She was simply trying to get some help for her home to have a lift installed. Then, unprompted, a suggestion was made by another Veterans Affairs employee that if her pain was so unbearable, MAID was something she could consider as an option. In private conversations since then, I have learned of at least a couple of other veterans who have been offered MAID, so that makes about eight veterans and about four different employees, at minimum, whom we are aware of.

This whole thing has gone down a very bizarre trail, and we get repeated denials. The minister came out at one point and said, after he had admitted there were four cases, that Veterans Affairs has never offered this. Then, the very next day, he told us they fired the employee who was involved in the four cases. It is a story that no one on that side of the House can seem to get straight, and it is really concerning. Those are the kinds of inconsistencies that we are seeing.

When veterans go to Veterans Affairs Canada looking for help, support and assistance, whether with physical injuries or mental injuries, they should feel comfortable and safe when they are dealing with Veterans Affairs. There should be a level of trust there. However, instead of being offered help with things they need to help them live their lives, they are being told that maybe it would be better if they just went off and died. That is a pretty sad situation. Veterans are being betrayed by the very people and institutions they are supposed to be able to trust, and that creates further damage. That creates what is called sanctuary trauma, and that can further isolate veterans and further prevent them from wanting to get the help they need.

I hope a long, hard look at this is taken in the next year. If the Liberal government cannot even stop its own employees from pushing MAID on veterans, how can it assure Canadians that the necessary safeguards can be put in place to protect vulnerable people from being pressured into accessing medical assistance in dying?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, perhaps my intervention will be more of a comment than a question, but I am happy to hear the member's thoughts on it.

Let us be absolutely clear on what happened with this one particular individual. There was a case worker in Veterans Affairs who should never have been giving any kind of advice regarding MAID. They were certainly not qualified to do that, and that individual no longer works for Veterans Affairs. That is the reality of the situation. Pertaining to medical advice, that should only ever come from an individual's physician and the medical experts who are qualified to do that.

Let us be clear that this was an isolated incident. The individual no longer works for Veterans Affairs. It is very clear what has happened with this individual and the fact is that they are no longer employed by Veterans Affairs.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member raised this because it is really important to understand we are talking about this kind of slippery slope we are leading down when we talk about expanding this into mental health.

I mean, there are many veterans in this country who struggle because of the service they have given this country. They struggle with psychological injuries, mental injuries, and PTSD. They may feel that, if they go to Veterans Affairs, which is where they need to go to get the help they need, there is a chance that, instead, they might be counselled on how they could end their life.

This has happened. We know of at least six cases where it has happened, and who knows how many others there might be. However, if a veteran has to feel that way about going to Veterans Affairs, might that mean they will not get the help they need? We should never be in a situation where a veteran feels they cannot get the help they need from the government.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I invite my colleague to read the expert report, which clearly states that, when treatment exists, people are not automatically eligible for medical assistance in dying just because the treatment is hard to get.

That is the shortcut the Conservatives have been taking since the start of this debate. Just because a person with depression asks for MAID does not necessarily mean they will get it. Just because someone somewhere is considering MAID because they are depressed does not mean they will have access to it. That is what they do not understand. There are assessors, providers, professionals whose job is to provide care for people whose condition is reversible. Is anyone here going to suggest that depression is irreversible?

Our colleagues talked about the experiences of people who attempted suicide. In every case, the condition was reversible. In fact, some Conservative members even talked about their own experience. They are here to tell the tale. We have to see things clearly. There are 16 key recommendations that are worth reading. I invite them to read the report.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to move on to Private Members' Business.

The hon. member for Banff—Airdrie will have about two minutes after Private Members' Business to continue with questions and comments.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-39, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I note there are a number of inconsistencies in what my colleague is saying about MAID for people with a mental health issue as the sole underlying condition. The expert panel reported on MAID and has made a number of recommendations. I know the extension we are seeking today is about ensuring that all of our systems can be in place, so I am wondering if my friend could reflect on what the expert panel has said in clearly outlining what is required and the safeguards in place for MAID to be extended to those with a mental health issue as the sole underlying condition.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, the ones I have noted on the record and the many others I have spoken to, I will say that they are not so much interested in what the expert panel had to say. They simply do not want the extension to happen, and I do not mean a delay. If the government is looking for a pat on the back and a reward for a good deed, as the Yiddish proverb goes, it is not going to happen right away.

For my constituents, I think the starting point is that there is a lack of trust, because they read stories of people who have accessed MAID and who had a condition that did not fit the description given in law. Because there are different provinces applying it in different ways and physicians have applied it in a fairly subjective way, there is a very low level of trust from constituents in my riding.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is one issue that has been raised many times in the House, and that is the issue of mental health. To date, the government has refused to make the investments needed to help people and to ensure that all Canadians who need mental health care receive it. This is not happening right now because of the lack of funding and resources.

I want to know what my colleague thinks of the government's mental health funding. Is it not important to make investments so that people will always have options when it comes to mental health?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, it could get interesting with two members from western Canada debating in French in the House on the topic of mental health.

I think that program funding and increased government services are not the only things that matter when it comes to mental health. There is the role of the family and the community. It is about having a career, a profession and a reason to live. There is faith, which is very important for many people.

Of course, it would be good for the government to provide more services to people having mental health issues or difficulties and who are asking for help. The provinces are responsible for providing the services. I know that my province of Alberta is working hard to ensure that people have a choice and access to services, but more can be done in the communities to provide services in rural regions and big cities. That said, I want to reiterate the importance of family, friends, work and faith, all of which must also play a role.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Prior to asking my learned colleague a question, I want to reflect on the life of a constituent who passed away over the holiday break. That was Paul Da Silva. I am very sorry for his family's loss, and I wish his wife and children all the best in this difficult time. May eternal light shine upon him.

My question to my learned colleague is this. We just heard from the parliamentary secretary about an expert panel. Typically, in law, when we talk about expert panels, they generally come down to what the court says. In this case, I am not sure if my colleague is aware, but I would like him to comment on how no court, from what I can see, has unequivocally stated that there is a right to medical assistance in dying for people who are mentally ill. I would like his comment on that.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the beginning of his comments sounded almost like an S. O. 31, and I encourage the member to try to catch the Speaker's eye the next time he rises.

He is absolutely right. From what I can tell, at no time in the decisions of Truchon or Carter, and I have read both, did the government say there was a right to die in Canada because of an underlying mental illness as the only condition.

[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—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have a point of order from the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can certainly appreciate the passion in the member's speech, but he did just start talking directly to Liberal members. He said, “You have...”, and I am certain he was not talking about you. Perhaps he would like to rephrase that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I appreciate the hon. member noticing that.

Yes, the hon. member has to speak through the Chair. That is just a reminder.

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

Through you, Madam Speaker, I implore the Liberal members of Parliament to stand up against their justice minister and the irresponsible decisions he is taking.

Across Canada every year we celebrate Bell Let's Talk. Mental health services have expanded in hospitals, schools and universities because there is an inherent belief by all Canadians that mental health challenges are things we can overcome. Every family in this country is impacted by mental health, and it pains me to see my country considering offering death to those suffering at their lowest points. We do not need to do this.

Again, through you, Madam Speaker, I implore Liberal members to challenge the justice minister on his overly broad interpretation of the Truchon decision, a ruling of the Quebec court, and to stop what he wants to do.

A recent article in The Globe and Mail talked about Donna Duncan, a 63-year-old woman from my community. Her daughter successfully delayed, through the court, her mother's access to MAID because her mother suffered from a mental illness. However, just hours after leaving the hospital, Donna received a medically assisted death without her daughters being informed, even though their mother already suffered from a mental health condition that was documented.

Both daughters, Alicia and Christie, testified at the medical assistance in dying committee and they made a number of recommendations.

The first, which seems so sensible, is “mandatory access to health care”.

The second is an increase in the required number of independent witnesses to be formally interviewed as part of the assessment, to at least three.

The third is “...a pre-death assessment review. Doctors should be required to submit all assessments to an independent review board prior to a patient's death.”

The fourth is “continuity of care. Multiple assessments should be completed by the same medical professional.”

The fifth is “mandatory wait periods”.

The sixth is “...mandatory release of records. Hospitals and health authorities should be required to release unredacted copies of their MAID assessment records to those who are entitled to them.”

I would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that, when Bill C-39 was tabled in Parliament, the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada called for this delay at the beginning of December. I will note as well that University of Toronto law professor Trudo Lemmens and numerous colleagues from across Canada challenged the Minister of Justice on his actions today.

Again, my plea today is to the Liberal caucus, through you, Madam Speaker, to challenge the decision of the justice minister, not to irresponsibly expand MAID in one year's time for those suffering from mental health. Canadians know that mental health can be overcome. Canadians know that this does not have to be the solution. Canadians know that they want to take care of people when they need to be taken care of.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, first, I sincerely appreciate the incredible passion the member has demonstrated in his speech. I congratulate him for relaying that in such a passionate manner to the House. Second, I certainly take great opportunity to reflect on this legislation and the issue before us, so I do not want the member to think there are not members of the Liberal bench who are always highly concerned over the manner in which this medical procedure would be used.

Finally, I am unsure exactly what the member is asking when he makes a plea to Liberal backbenchers, in his terms. The whole point of this extension is to make sure that everything that would be put in place would be done in a responsible and appropriate manner.

By the member's own admission, he is voting in favour of this extension. Therefore, what is it, exactly, that the member is asking? Is he asking for something that is supposed to happen a year from now?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to clarify a key point, which is that I do not believe that mental health sickness should be a reason for someone to receive MAID in Canada. The legislation before us today would delay the ability of medical professionals to offer MAID on the basis of mental health sicknesses. I do not want to see my country ever reach that point. Therefore, in the year ahead, I implore the Liberal members of Parliament to challenge their justice minister, because I know, and they know, that the large majority of Canadians are against this.

In fact, I did a survey in my community. While my community was equally divided on MAID in general, there was unanimity among all of my constituents that, at a minimum, proper medical supports and mental health supports should be offered to all people irrespective of their medical conditions, and especially for those considering the use of MAID.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I will admit that my hon. colleague kind of stole my thunder, because I was going to ask a bit about what his constituents were saying.

However, I am wondering if there were any responses that particularly stood out. As I understood his last comment, he said that it was about fifty-fifty on the issue of medical assistance in dying, generally. However, it sounds like there was near unanimity from his constituents, and obviously on a moral issue he has to bear that in mind. I wonder if the member wants to take 30 to 45 seconds of this important time in the House on this very important topic to elaborate on that.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is from Canada's number two riding, after my riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. I will note that, under the proposed redistribution boundaries, he is going to take part of Canada's number one riding, which I am very sad to see.

However, to the member's point, my constituents believe that we, as a country as rich and prosperous as Canada is, should be offering the medical treatment to allow people to make informed decisions about their lives, especially when they are most vulnerable. Right now, we are not there. I could [Technical difficulty—Editor] for example in my community, that a woman decided to receive MAID because she felt she was a burden on society, in Abbotsford, and did not have access to adequate housing. Where are we as a country and a society when we are permitting the death of an—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I apologize to the hon. member, but his sound is very unstable. I think we are having issues with interpretation. We are running out of time also, but the last bit was a bit unstable. It was very difficult to understand all the sentences, and we are out of time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, especially when we are talking about something that is really quite critical and that is quite important to a number of people in the House.

This is an issue that really tugs at the heartstrings of a number of Canadians. My hope, and what I have seen so far, is that we can have a rational debate on this issue. What we are debating in this bill is the one-year postponement, putting it in my words, of the provision of medical assistance in dying to people who are suffering solely from mental illness. It is also intertwined with the greater question of what we, as Canadians, should be doing. If there is no other place that we should be debating this, it is right here.

I want to reflect a little bit on how we got here and also where I anticipated we might go, based both on what materials have been provided to the Minister of Justice and what the government has put out through its charter statement.

It was not that long ago that I was in high school. Maybe it was a while back, 1993, if I recall.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I thank the hon. member for being honest.

[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?

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

Madam Speaker, I am quite concerned about the way my colleague has framed this issue. The issue of MAID for mental health as the sole underlying condition was resolved two years ago. An expert panel reported in the middle of last year with some recommendations. There has also been extensive work by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, which that was tabled today, and I think all of the evidence suggests that we are ready to move forward on MAID for mental health as the sole underlying condition, however there is a need to ensure that additional safeguards are in place.

I am wondering if my friend could comment on the role of the expert panel and its recommendations in this regard.

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

Madam Speaker, I will address the member saying that this was resolved two years ago. Two years ago would have made it February 15, the day after Valentine's Day, 2021. This charter statement was tabled in the House October 21, 2020. Was this issue resolved mere months after this charter statement? I get it. Reasonable people can disagree sometimes, and we talk about expert panels.

I will say this much. This letter to the minister, led by Trudo Lemmens, was tabled February 2, 2023. These are serious concerns. When there are serious concerns about an issue this significant, we should not be saying we are pressing on in one year. We should be giving this more thought.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, who often speaks in this place about the need for justice and the need to ensure that those who are left behind actually get support.

I often find myself thinking about solutions. New Democrats have tabled solutions to fix one of the core drivers of the mental health crisis in Canada, which is poverty. Poverty is one of the greatest contributors to the mental health crisis in this country. We have tabled solutions, and I understand the Conservatives may disagree with some of those solutions. One of them is the guaranteed livable basic income.

Could the member, given the kind of description of the problems of poverty and the effects it has on mental health, offer at least one solution so those who are struggling to pay their rent and struggling to pay for their groceries can ensure that they get that kind of support? Could the member elaborate on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's intervention. I have been here 18 months, and it has been a pleasure to get to know him over that time.

My hon. colleague may not know this, but my wife, as a clinical lawyer, helps the most down-and-out people. She is somebody I consider an expert in this field, helping out people and giving them legal advice for the greatest issues. They are often the most poor, and one of the things she relates to me is that one of the contributors is actually trauma. That is one of the greatest issues when it comes to mental health as well. It is trauma.

I am not going to discount poverty. We, as Conservatives, talk about poverty every day in this place when we talk about the impact of inflation on poverty. If we really want to talk about this, we should talk about the government not legislating mandatory minimums for sexual offences. That is where trauma comes from. I hope, when we do speak about these things, that my colleague joins me. I look forward to chatting more about extinguishing poverty with him.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about the charter and how every single piece of legislation is supposed to be complying with it. He mentioned that, at the justice committee, they did not have information about whether this particular piece of legislation was charter compliant. I want to give him the extra time to go over the matter just so the House can be well briefed on the current situation with Bill C-39.

[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.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, we are here for what is really such a deeply personal and complex discussion on Bill C-39. I want to start by saying the discussion tonight is about Bill C-39, and it has been the discussion here for the last few nights. I say this because some time ago, and I believe it was in November, we had a one-night discussion in the House, a take-note debate on mental health, in which I participated. Frankly, there were very few participants in that debate. A number of colleagues were here for that.

However, the discussion tonight is not about mental health. It is about Bill C-39, the legislation before us, to delay the implementation of MAID as it pertains to mental illness by a year. The core of the crux is that there is a mental health literacy discussing this problem in the chamber, and perhaps even across the country.

I want to start by saying what mental health is and what it is not. Mental health is really, at its core, in the day-to-day for all Canadians and all of us in the House, who work really hard and have stress for ourselves and our constituents. We have been going through a really challenging time these last two plus years through COVID.

Mental health is the ability to navigate and recover from a challenging situation and to be able to move forward with a sense of self. It does not mean that when we are stressed, when we have anxiety or when we are facing a tough period where there may be ebbs and flows of depression, we are struggling from mental illness. That is mental health.

We really need to start the conversation there. Truthfully, for any human being, and I have two teenage daughters, day-to-day things are up and down. We are not meant to always be happy all the time. We are not always meant to be in a positive state of being. There are ebbs and flows to life, just as there are for every Canadian across this country. Having two teenage daughters, I am sure many colleagues in the House can relate.

The truth of the matter is that mental health is not the opposite of mental illness. When I talk about people being diagnosed with a mental illness, I mean people who are diagnosed by a physician, which means a psychiatrist, a medical professional who is familiar with the categorizations of diagnosis under the DSM-5.

There are individuals with mental illness who are treated for it who have good mental health. Can members imagine that? One can have good mental health while one struggles through mental illness. That is a reality for many, many individuals who deal with mental illness. About 15% to 20% are medically diagnosed with mental illness.

There is a mental health crisis for many Canadians in this country, with many social determinants, whether it be poverty, housing or inflation, that are impacting the mental health of many Canadians, but they are not struggling with mental illness. I really feel strongly that is where we need to start the discussion.

Bill C-39 is not about mental health. Bill C-39 is about mental illness and those who have struggled with mental illness who have been presented treatment after treatment, have tried everything imaginable to address their suffering, and have not found relief. They have not been able to find that ebb and flow of life many of us experience in mental health. We need to acknowledge that.

I heard a lot of disturbing statements in the House, such as this legislation being euthanasia or medical treatment by death. Shame on them for disparaging the DSM categorizations of medical professionals and using fast and loose language in the House on what is a profoundly serious categorization of suffering for individuals in this country.

Frankly, this is a hard issue. MAID is a hard issue for so many of us. It is so hard for us to know people we love may be suffering from a disorder or a terminal condition there is no relief from.

I want to move now into what Bill C-39 is, because we need to go over that.

Bill C-39 is asking for a year. It is asking for a year to pause on allowing for mental illness as the sole determinant for an individual requesting MAID, so that it can be reviewed and so that it can be put into place well. What do we mean by “well”? We have a health care crisis in this country. We have gone through two years of COVID. Doctors, nurses and health care practitioners are exhausted, and they need to be trained on this. They need to understand the DSM-5. They need to understand what the treatment protocols are for those who suffer with mental illness. We are not there yet. We want to ensure that the best practices are in place, and done with compassion and with a deep sensitivity for the individual suffering.

It is about the individual. Many of us in the House have beliefs, which may be religious beliefs or personal beliefs, about how they feel about MAID in general or how they feel about MAID in relation to this particular categorization of mental illness. At the end of the day, it is about the individual. It is not about us. It is about them. We need to remember who is at the core of this legislation and why it has been put forward, and the compassion and time that have been put in by medical experts. One can present me with one panel or another panel. At the heart of this is human suffering. I would not wish on anyone in the House to know what it is to have a loved one who suffers from mental illness, because I did.

I had a 15-year-old nephew who suffered from mental illness. Every treatment was offered to him, every treatment, and he refused. I lost my nephew to suicide, not because we did not have hope, not because there were no resources, not because we did not try, but because everything that was put on the table, and trust me, I am a fierce mama, did not help him. I have to live with that loss, and the grief of that loss, of his choice. He did not make his choice in a medically assisted format. He chose suicide. We need to understand the difference.

Why do I share this? I share it because this is a personal issue. I also have a dear friend who had ALS. She suffered for years, but we put into place protocols for her so that when she knew it was enough, we would be by her side in her choice. There were friends who did not show up for her choice. There were many of us who debated about her choice, that it was gut-wrenching. Each step of the way, we had check-ins with her, even when she could only communicate through her eyelids. Was she sure that this was what she wanted? Was she ready? It was heartbreaking to leave that room that day, but it was her choice.

At the core of this, as hard as it is for members of this House to understand, it is about the individual. We have an obligation to provide every guardrail to every professional framework that is caring and compassionate, and that is why we need time to build it and set it out.

At the end of the day, these are professionals. This is mental illness. To the degree that individuals are suffering at that level, one should never have to watch individuals suffer to that degree.

Even if they go and ask for it from their psychiatrist, even if they are contemplating this, that is the beginning of the process. It is not an automatic decision. Then, their entire history of treatment needs to be reviewed, every protocol questioned. Every stone needs to be turned and reviewed by another professional. This is not even sober second thought, as we would have in the Senate. This is sober after sober after sober, three times, four times, five times, until every check has been done with the individual who is truly suffering.

I want to get out of the speak of professionals and all of that because at the core of this is the human being who is suffering. We need to know our language and be clear about that.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague's very thoughtful speech, except there is one thing that still concerns me. I will paraphrase, because I was not taking notes as she spoke, but it was something like “once a patient who is suffering has tried everything”. My concern is that as long as we block access to psilocybin, as one example, or other therapies and treatments that could make a difference, I do not think we have tried everything.

That is why I am very relieved we have another year, and I hope my hon. colleague would agree that we need to use that year well, including accelerating research into other promising therapies.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and I talk about many things with such thoughtfulness and care.

I can only speak at the moment to the current available treatments that are out there. I know some of the treatments that the member mentioned are in great debate and great discussion at this time. The point is why we are asking for time. We are asking for time for exactly that reason, so that we understand the depth of the treatments and the options, to make sure that we are not missing anything before we allow this to go forward.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I had the wonderful privilege of welcoming the member for York Centre to my community in Iqaluit and we had a wonderful time there.

I want to ask the member a specific question about the “Final Report of the Expert Panel on MAiD and Mental Illness”, from May 2022, because I really appreciated the refocus on mental illnesses. In that report, “mental illness” is said to be for those who are “lack[ing] a standard clinical definition”. My concern is that there are a lot of first nations, Métis and Inuit who might not fit into this professional model. This panel recognized it as well and, in recommendation 14, said that there need to be consultations with first nations, Métis and Inuit on creating practice standards.

I wonder if the member could share her thoughts on that.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Nunavut always reminds us how important it is to make sure that in all of our consultations, no matter what the issue is, whether it is climate change, indigenous early learning, or mental health and health care in indigenous communities, the indigenous lens on health care must be included.

Communities handle the care of their loved ones differently. There are diagnostic tools that are available from many different backgrounds and communities that weigh in on such decisions that we make as a country. I would welcome the member sharing her thoughts with me on what we should be considering in that discussion.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is one thing from the other side that I find confusing. They can correct me if they wish, but they seem to be saying that if in fact a year from now we allow mental illness as a sole reason for medically assisted death, those people would not be suicidal. By the very definition of medically assisted suicide, or MAID, that person is suicidal.

If we now allow mental illness as a sole reason for MAID, are we not making suicide easier?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is exactly the reason why mental health literacy is so important, because those who suffer with mental illness are not necessarily, by default, suicidal. I would be more than happy to educate the member on the determinants of that.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-39 this evening. As a legislator and member of Parliament for Lévis—Lotbinière since 2006, I have been told about, and sometimes even witnessed, some very difficult situations involving people or families in distress.

On May 3, 2016, in the House, I allowed myself the privilege of expressing the thoughts sent to me at the time by several of my constituents during the sensitive debate on MAID. It is a topic that leaves no one indifferent.

I want to emphasize that, regardless of their political allegiance or their position on this issue, all parliamentarians are once again demonstrating courage by taking part in this debate, which is difficult for all of us.

The Supreme Court gave members of Parliament the daunting task and responsibility of setting the foundations of a law. This forced us to do some soul-searching about the purpose of our lives and the lives of the citizens we represent. We were aware that the law as a whole would not be perfect, that it would merely be acceptable, given all the changes it made to our way of seeing life and living in the future.

It is always a great privilege for me and a sign of undeniable trust when people share heartfelt confidences with me, especially when they deal with matters of life and death. The expansion of MAID to people with mental health disorders definitely falls into that category. I see parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters and friends worried about the expansion of the MAID legislation. When we stop and think about it, obviously we all want to keep our loved ones with us as long as possible.

Surprisingly, however, many of the discussions I have had with my constituents have revealed another very important issue that can cause mental health problems. I am talking about how the Liberals have trivialized the consequences of cannabis use, even though they knew the extent of the consequences when legalization was studied in committee. Several studies confirmed that use in adolescence would cause mental health challenges for those who already had a genetic predisposition.

We were promised that a lot of money would be invested in programs for people grappling with that addiction, as well as mental health services. Unfortunately, given the challenges that already exist across Canada in terms of access to regular health care, we suspected that specialized mental health care would be inaccessible and insufficient for Canadians. Therein lies the rub. One can easily imagine what will happen when hard drugs are legalized in Canada, again by the Liberal legacy that is destroying the Canada we once knew.

I would like to share that I will soon be a grandfather for a sixth time. I am obviously very happy, but I am also very concerned about our Canada, which has been deteriorating by the day since 2015. Canada is deeply broken, and millions of Canadians are suffering because of the erosion of their sense of security and quality of life.

I would like to use the time that I have to speak to Bill C-39 as an opportunity for honest reflection. As members no doubt know, humans need to give meaning to their lives to fully appreciate all the good things life has to offer. It is human nature to seize the best opportunities we get to enjoy life. However, what do we do when the government takes away those opportunities by implementing policies that go against our well-being and we lose faith and hope in the future?

Is it right for us, in the near future or the next few years, to allow people with mental health challenges to put an end to their lives, when they might have a better quality of life if we were to give them ways to fix what is going wrong and more resources so that they could find balance in their everyday lives?

I think the public is aware that nothing is working anymore and that we are living the opposite of what we are used to in so many aspects of our lives.

In spite of that, we must not see the future as inevitable. There are always solutions, and, as fragile as life may be, we have the privilege of sharing love and friendship. We can strengthen our bonds and help one another.

Our society is constantly changing. It shapes our fundamental, cultural, religious and spiritual values when it comes to life and the end of life. What was personally unacceptable yesterday may change tomorrow. We need to respect one another here, because we all have a say in this Parliament. That being said, the end-of-life choice that is acceptable to the individual is based on their convictions, their beliefs, their physical health and perhaps, ultimately, their mental health.

We have to be careful about that fourth point, mental health, because when it comes to care and scientific advances, we are still making progress. Who knows if we will find drugs that open up new possibilities for people who currently do not see any solutions?

We are faced with the same question we had to answer when the initial law was drafted in 2016: How can we ensure that this will not get out of control? It will be difficult to include safeguards in the law that will cover all of the very different cases of people with mental health issues.

I think it is wise to make the right choices for Canadians' safety and for future generations. Once again, time will tell whether this change in direction was a good one. All parliamentarians in the House and the Senate will make a significant contribution to this debate. We must all bring a rational and moral tenor to this bill as we align it with Canadian values and thinking in a way that respects all of our Canadian communities. We will live with the future changes that will come from this law. We have to ensure that it will be interpreted in accordance with our guidelines, because the consequences will be irreversible.

I am pleased that we are giving ourselves some time to address this delicate subject in order to protect vulnerable people and not to do something irreparable to people who are precious and who have the potential to live a better life with dignity.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He is right, there are service gaps. People with mental health issues may be unable to access what services there are. This is a huge problem. The government has not put any resources into it.

This evening, we learned that, when people seek access to psilocybin, a therapy that makes a difference for them, the government and Health Canada are not responding to those requests in due time.

Here is my question for my colleague. Why does the government seem unwilling to take mental health issues as seriously as they deserve to be taken?

Why is the government dragging its feet on approval for a therapy like psilocybin? Why is it so slow to follow its own guide on the importance of authorizing this kind of treatment?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question. Canada is facing huge challenges right now with respect to mental health. We should double down on this and make mental illness a priority, because it is affecting hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

There are plenty of ways to add more resources to our health care system. The government could speed up the approval process for certain drugs. We can all be more open to new ways of thinking, working and living in society that would alleviate this problem. Let us hope the government will see it and show a little leadership on things like that.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I largely agreed with the hon. member's speech, except for when he started blaming everything on the Prime Minister. Other than that, I thought he made a good and thoughtful speech.

Has the hon. member had any interaction with the health care system in Quebec? Has he made any observations with respect to how it deals with the mental health care that is given in Quebec for the patients who might well be accessing this particular MAID service?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find my colleague's questions very interesting.

In Quebec, once a patient enters the system and has access to psychiatrists and health care, the results are relatively good. However, the unfortunate part is that there are not nearly enough staff, people and psychiatrists for the number of cases that exist.

Wait times to access this type of service can be six months, even a year or a year and a half, depending on the severity of the case. This unfortunately means that there are some people who, while waiting for treatment, may commit an irreparable act and leave this earth.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I just align with one of my colleagues, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, in relation to doing everything we can for those who may be suffering before it gets to the point of an application for medical assistance in dying.

Earlier today, for example, one of our colleagues gathered folks who were suffering from immense pain and living day by day, not knowing what to do. That pain contributes to their overwhelming feeling of despair, which then leads them to apply for something like medical assistance in dying. In fact, the government could put in place regulations to support these folks before they get to that place. They could ensure psilocybin, a treatment that they are calling for; they have already established a right to have access to this treatment. Would the member speak to the importance of ensuring that we do everything we can to support these folks, including providing medicine that they desperately need?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting question.

Yes, if there is an opportunity to speed up the approval of certain medications here in Canada to help people with mental health issues, let us do it as quickly as possible.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I understand I am the last member to speak on this debate. I doubt, however, that I will be the last word on this. I am not. I see that I am neither the last speaker nor the last word then.

I have been kind of reluctant, frankly, to engage in this debate because I do not consider myself to be an expert. I have not participated in committee hearings, and I have not had the benefit of listening to the expert witnesses. Therefore, the only thing that I bring to this particular debate is 25 years in and around the mental health system in the eastern part of the GTA. This is due to the fact that my son, technically my stepson, has schizophrenia.

The schizophrenia started to manifest itself when he was about 15 years of age; he is now about 40. As a family, we have been able to make some observations about the current state of the mental health care system in our neighbourhood. We are a well-resourced family; we have been able to access the best that there is on offer in and around the city of Toronto.

Our son has spent some weeks at the Whitby Psychiatric Hospital east of Toronto, one of the best that Ontario has to offer. He has also spent some time at the CAMH in downtown Toronto, which is possibly the leading health care facility in this particular area of health care. He has also spent time at our local Scarborough Health Network; this is a good health network, but my observation is that it is just absolutely overwhelmed.

The previous speaker talked about access in the order of 12 to 18 months. This has been our experience as well, even though we have supported him as a family. As I said, we are well resourced, and his mother, in particular, is fierce in her protection of him.

We started to notice his erratic behaviour when he was around 15. For three or four years, we really did not know what it was, in spite of taking him to various health care experts. When he went off to university, he had his first diagnosed psychotic break. If members know anything about schizophrenia, they know that when one is recovering from that psychotic break, one never regains everything. Over the years, he had a number of psychotic breaks, and each time, he did not fully come back.

The observation is that when one is around 40 years of age, that is as good as it is going to get. One neither gets any worse nor certainly any better. He fills the definition of somebody who has an irremediable condition. It is medically diagnosed, and he has had episodes where we had the police there and things of that nature. Fortunately, as I said, his mother is a fierce advocate for him, and we have been able to stabilize his housing. He is well housed and well fed, which has not always been the case. However, at this period of his life, he is stable.

Over the course of these 25 years, we have made some observations of the system. The first observation is that it is overwhelmed. If the general health care system in Ontario is at its maximum stretching point, the health care system is always stretched beyond that point. I will not say it is broken, but it certainly is stretched.

This is not a condemnation of the people or the personnel who are in the system. They are good-hearted, overworked and exhausted. It is the patients who suffer. I do not have a great deal of faith, based on my observations, that one year from now somehow we will have a better system than we have today. My guess is that it will be closer to generations.

One of my hon. colleagues from the NDP raised the issue of poverty, homelessness and all the other issues that people face. Again, it has been our observation that we as a family have been able to shield him from a lot of things that mental health patients face on a daily basis, such as how they are going to eat, where they are going to sleep, all that sort of stuff.

Therefore, from time to time, it appears that ending one's life is an attractive alternative. I fear that, primarily for those people who are not well resourced and not well shielded from the vagaries of life, who have no job, no relationships and a limited appreciation of their own reality, it would be an attractive alternative to end their life, and that will be made available to them and, I dare say, available a little too readily at times.

These are observations we have made over 25 years. We have made them in the context of a family trying to support someone who would fall within the specific categories that are delineated in the legislation. We frankly have no real faith that this might not be an alternative for our son. That would be tragic for us all because it would not be a death in isolation.

I would also make the observation that we are long on talk in this place and short on resources. We talk about fixing the system. We talk about making resources available. One can pretty well go back through the speeches in Hansard for the last year or two years or five years or 10 years, and each incident of legislation comes with a promise of resources. I wish that were true, but it is not. In our observation, it is only getting more challenging.

In some respects, this legislation is a way out of doing what we need to do to facilitate the health care challenges of our most vulnerable citizens. While I will, with colleagues, support this legislation, I frankly do not think things will change in a year. It may be that they will change in 10 years. I think this is the kind of timeline and horizon that we would be realistically looking at in order to deal with people who would fall within the specific delineated categories as set out in this legislation.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for his thoughtful intervention. This is indeed a difficult debate because we are talking about something that is inevitable for all of us. The difference is ending suffering and how some people have the privilege to die with dignity while others have no choice but to feel like ending their lives through suicide.

This is a very difficult question or debate. We want to talk about ensuring practice standards that meet everyone's needs, so mental health issues are addressed and people with mental illnesses also get the help they need. Given his experience with someone with mental illness, could the member talk about how this kind of discussion needs to be opened up in the next year?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for an excellent question that centres on the issue of practice standards.

I have no doubt that, particularly where I live in the east part of Toronto, we have the highest-quality practice standards. However, there can be the highest standards and most qualified people in the nation, but if they are overwhelmed by virtue of people being in the system because of the circumstances in which they live, no amount of practice standards will get them out of that.

My focus would be on relieving the suffering by helping those people so that they do not find themselves contemplating this alternative.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not really posing a question. I just have a comment.

My friend from Scarborough—Guildwood is a dear friend and someone I have looked up to for many years. I want to thank him for sharing his very personal experience with us. I know it is something that he has shared on a number of occasions and in a very public way. I think it is important that we all understand that we have people in our lives who are deeply impacted by mental health issues.

As government moves forward on this, that is always something the minister, as well as the government, will continuously evaluate and undertake. I really do want to thank him for sharing his very wise comments with us today.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his intervention. We are at a watershed. This legislation kind of fixes the problem. We could pass it or we, as a society, could be serious about the under-resourcing of those who are most vulnerable. I dare say that we are going to try to legislate our way out of this instead of trying to resource our way out of it.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for what I think is an important intervention.

I will agree with him in some part that this is an important moment for Canadians. Hopefully, this bill allows us the time to contemplate what the important steps will be to ensure that we listen to community members. This means not only those who are suffering from mental illness but also those who are combatting poverty and their contributors to it. Then, we can actually have a chance to do this work during this period and do the things that we need this law to do to ensure that vulnerable folks do not fall victim to an easy way out.

Could the member ensure that the government works hard to do the consultation, talk to those folks and make sure that there are pathways before this becomes the decision they do not have to make?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member raises an interesting point, and I do not know whether we are agreeing or disagreeing, frankly. I just do not have the faith that a year from now things will change greatly. Where are we? We are still under-resourcing the system, and we are still not providing the care that these folks need. Members can walk down Bank Street on their way home tonight, and there are a lot of people there who are pretty far gone. I just do not think we have the will, as a nation, to do much beyond providing legislation, and we think this is somehow a way out. Maybe it is. I do not know whether I agree or disagree, but I do not have that faith.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, that was a powerful speech and it gives me great hope. We will probably come out of this on two different sides, in different parts of our lives, but I can tell that the member is a good dad and a good person.

For the people watching at home or watching this clip on Facebook later on, even the intervention from my colleague from the NDP gives me great hope. This is not finished. This is not done. We have an opportunity here because there are good people in all parties. I think that this year, this opportunity, gives us, hopefully, some time to reflect on what is important and hear stories like the ones we just heard, that including mental diseases and conditions in MAID is wrong. It shall not be in our society that people seeking help for depression could possibly be turned to medically assisted suicide.

I believe this is a blessing, that we have one year to hopefully convince enough of my colleagues, in all parties, that we need to not just pause this but scrap the idea that we could potentially solve one's mental health problems by providing suicide.

We talk about why we are here and why we are having so much trouble with mental health. I think mental health and addictions, if we talk to different specialists, go hand in hand. I believe we are on a very dangerous course right now with the explosion of mental health issues and the acceptance of hard drugs in our country.

We have an epidemic of overdoses happening right now. That is not medically assisted suicide. That is drugs-assisted suicide. This is not to say that there is an analogy to it, but it is wrong. We should not be allowing this in our society.

We have to do more. We have to do more for mental health in Canada. This is a serious subject. I do not want to get partisan, but our health care system was garbage before the pandemic. It was underfunded and it was on life support before the pandemic. We went through the pandemic and we put our population through so many pressure points that no doubt we were going to have a spike in the abuse of drugs and mental health issues.

The health care system, before the pandemic, was on life support. We kind of muddled our way through it, and here we are today. Other than the announcement a week ago, we have not had an increased health transfer to the provinces, which provide the health care these patients need. They need proper mental health supports, not the MAID 1-800 number.

I am very frustrated with where we are as a society, that this is what the case is, that we cannot get help in this country. It is broken. We cannot find a doctor. We cannot get treatment. We cannot get addiction beds: “Come back in 18 months and we might have a spot for you.” How is that treatment?

I have heard people say that the health care professionals will have check boxes and forms and it has to go through a secondary step and it is going to get signed off on by another professional. Who has time for that? We cannot even find family doctors to see patients for common colds, but we are going to have all these health care professionals who are going to go through all these applications and somehow weed out the ones that should not be there. It is just not going to happen.

It is frustrating that we are here tonight debating this. There is no court in Canada that said that we need to expand MAID for people suffering from mental health issues. Not a single court ruling said to blow this wide open and offer it to anyone who is having issues.

We need to spend this year to think about the ramifications of this.

We heard the member talk about his 40-year-old son. This is the part that gets me. I am a relatively new dad. My two boys are not 40, but nine and seven, and they are going to have challenges as teenagers. We all had challenges as teenagers. We all know teenagers who had challenges, and hopefully not too many of us know teenagers who took their lives. Life is hard sometimes. Teenagers have pressure where it seems like the whole world is on them, and they make that choice. We cannot stop what young adults do.

I worry about my two kids, who are going to go through the same things that everyone in this chamber has gone through: the pressures of being an adolescent, or as was said in here, a mature minor. They are not mature minors; they are teenagers who are going to have tough days. I had tough days.

I do not want my two boys to think that just because they are depressed and having a tough go of it, or maybe having more serious mental health concerns, they can just access MAID and be done. That is the wrong approach for Canada. I will do whatever I can in the next 12 months to convince enough members of this chamber that this bill needs to be—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry to interrupt the member but would ask that he not bang his finger on the desk. I know he is passionate, but it is hard for the interpreters. I want to make sure we are not affecting the interpreters; I know they have had a lot of challenges lately.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

I will stop banging on my desk, Madam Speaker, but I am not going to stop banging on my desk in my office or on doors across Canada. We need to stop this. This is not a Canadian approach to health care. We do not offer suicide to people suffering from mental health disorders.

We have 12 months to get this right, and as the last member said, I do not think that health care is going to improve. Our system is way too broken to be fixed in 12 months. He knows it, I know it and everyone here knows it. What are we setting ourselves up for? I would tell all members or anyone watching that as much as this is an emotional and very heated debate, and we need to respect other people's opinions, we also need to have this dialogue.

I would encourage people watching at home to contact their members of Parliament in a respectful way, ask for a meeting and explain their concerns. I suspect a lot of them will have concerns similar to mine on why we should not expand this. They should do it in a respectful manner. I believe there are enough good people in this chamber to stop it. That is my message.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about mental illness, mental distress and depression as being reasons why it may be permissible to ask for assistance in dying. I look at this and say that we have come a long way. Our laws were based on some court rulings surrounding people who wanted to die because they had lost their ability to control their bodies. They had ALS; they had no control over their bodies at all. They could not actually go through the act of committing suicide, but they maintained razor-sharp consciousness and a strong will. Sue Rodriguez is one example.

We should not go from that to somebody who is essentially having a failure of will. That is what depression is, being unable to formulate plans to carry on and instead saying there is an easy way out. This seems to me to be fundamentally dangerous, to be almost leading people on. It seems to me this is an obvious underlying problem.

I am glad to have a year to slow down this progress in the wrong direction. Quite frankly, I think we should be very much looking at some entirely different direction. The idea that the courts are somehow going to impose on Canada in the situation of depressed people, people who are struggling because of circumstances that are hard in their lives, is that “life is hard; death is easy”. It is absolutely outrageous to say, “This is it. The kingdom of death is upon us; that is just dandy".

I guess I am asking my colleague to offer some commentary on this national abdication of will that seems to be, at best, coming a year from the present.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member's question will give me an opportunity to once again underline what the member is trying to get at, which is that this is wrong. Leadership is not just putting something to the courts and following a ruling. On this one, the courts were not even asking for mental health to be a factor in MAID.

Maybe this is the point where backbenchers and other parties, cabinet ministers or MPs can take these 12 months to consider all the arguments, for and against. I have a very tough time with including mental health. I do not think there is a single honest, good reason why someone should access MAID because of depression or other serious mental health issues.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did not expect to get a second chance to do this, so I will just make the observation that, with regard to mental health and mental issues, the definition of most illnesses and diseases have not changed over time. The definitions surrounding ALS, for example, have not changed substantially over time.

However, the definitions of various mental illnesses under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or the DSM, have changed constantly. DSM-4 was dramatically different in many respects from DSM-3, DSM-2 and DSM-1. These are, to some degree, arbitrarily defined illnesses, and to say that we can make a firm and meaningful, as opposed to subjective, medical determination that someone is in a position where they are sufficiently mentally ill that they qualify for medical assistance in dying seems to me to be very strange indeed and very subjective.

I talked, perhaps with too much rhetorical flourish, about the triumph of the kingdom of death over life. However, the triumph of subjectivity over objectivity, while wearing objectivity's clothes, seems to me to be profoundly unwise and, once again, a very good reason to say that we ought not to be going down this path. I will leave it there and ask again for the member's commentary.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, my understanding of mental health, the DSM, a lot of the mental health disorders and how they are diagnosed or rated is that there is a system where we ask the patient how they feel, on a scale of 1 to 10, in different categories. We kind of gauge where they are, and we have an understanding of the disorder or the mental health issue that they are facing. It is very subjective and difficult. It is not like they can do a blood test to find out if someone is positive or negative, or that there are other physical ailments that can actually be measured to understand that the person is not going to recover from them.

Mental health is different. There are also advances. This is the thing that should give hope. There are medical advancements that are treating people whom we never thought we could treat before, and a lot of that has to do with mental health. There are chances now that we can revisit some of these diseases and disorders with modern pharmaceutical solutions or therapies that have not been tried before in the western world. That is where we have to spend our energy.

We also have to put those extra resources into health care. That means a larger transfer. That means the Liberals' coming through on their $4.5-billion promise for health care in the last election. They have yet to deliver a single penny on it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We will resume debate.

There being no further members rising for debate, pursuant to order made on Monday, February 13, the motion is deemed adopted and Bill C-39, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), is deemed read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

(Bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

It being 8:41 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:41 p.m.)