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

[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.)