Debates of Oct. 20th, 2022

Mental Health

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

Madam Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Yorkton—Melville.

Millions of Canadians live with a mental illness. Tragically, each year more than 4,000 Canadians commit suicide, the vast majority of whom suffer from a mental illness. Concerningly, many more Canadians who suffer from mental illness will have their lives prematurely ended as a result of the Liberal government's ideologically driven, evidence-free expansion of MAID in cases where mental illness is the sole underlying condition.

It was not long ago that the Minister of Justice himself cautioned against expanding MAID in cases where mental illness is the sole underlying condition. In this very place, when Bill C-7 was debated, he said that there are “inherent complexities and risks with MAID on the basis of mental illness as the sole criterion, such as suicidality being a symptom of some mental illnesses”. What has changed? Those inherent complexities and risks remain. What has changed is purely political.

When Bill C-7 went over to the Senate, the Senate adopted a significant amendment to drastically expand MAID in cases of sole mental illness by way of a sunset clause that would come into effect in March 2023. Despite having spoken of “inherent complexities and risks”, the Minister of Justice, incredibly, did a 180° turnaround and accepted the Senate amendment, despite the absence of meaningful study and the absence of meaningful consultation. Then, the Liberal government shut down debate to ram through the bill and ram through this radical expansion of MAID.

By law, in order to qualify for MAID, it must be established that the patient suffers from a “grievous and irremediable” condition that is “incurable”, in which one is in an “irreversible” state of decline. In other words, in order to qualify for MAID, it must be established that one cannot get better.

The Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, of which I am a vice-chair, has heard testimony from medical experts, including psychiatrists, and the evidence is that it is not safe to move ahead. That is because it is not possible, or at the very least it is difficult, to predict irremediability.

Even the government's own expert panel concluded as much. On page 9 of the government's own expert panel report, the expert panel said, “it is difficult, if not impossible, for clinicians to make accurate predictions about the future for an individual patient” in cases of sole mental illness. That means persons who are suffering from mental illness who could get better and go on to lead happy and productive lives will have their lives prematurely ended.

As such, I submit that it is reckless and irresponsible for the government to move ahead. What the government should do instead is take the evidence of the expert panel, listen to the experts who have come before the special joint committee and put a pause on this significant and, I would submit, dangerous expansion of MAID. Anything less would be a betrayal of some of the most vulnerable people in this country.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Chair, I submit to my hon. colleague that he has spent quite a lot of time in rooms with experts discussing this issue, and far more than I have. I am new to this conversation. It is uncomfortable. It is intimidating. It is scary. We are not experts on mental health in this room, but my hon. colleague has heard from many.

I wonder if he can articulate to the chamber this evening what he has heard on the other side of the argument. I do understand that there is a valid case to be made, from medical experts, psychologists and psychiatrists, that it is discriminatory to withhold medical assistance in dying from people whose sole underlying affliction is mental health. For the purpose of a thorough debate, I wonder, given his expertise, if he could provide the House with some insight on what he disagrees with some of these experts on.

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

Madam Chair, the parliamentary secretary is right. There are those who would make the argument that he just made, on the basis of section 15, or that he asserts some who have come before the committee have made. That is fair. However, the issue is whether this can be done safely, and the balance of evidence before the committee is that it cannot, at least at this time.

What the government should have done all along is undertaken the appropriate review instead of rushing ahead and saying it was doing this and now we are going to study it. In short, I would submit that the government put the cart before the horse, and unfortunately vulnerable people are going to be put at risk. There is an opportunity still, because it is not March 2023 yet, for the government to—

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Chair, although I do respect my colleague, he has some gall to have made that speech.

First, when parties were discussing the deadlines for the committee's work, it was the Conservatives who refused to have the committee continue its work past the date set at the outset. Then they accepted June 6. We finally agreed on February and today they are saying that we must take the time needed. Meanwhile, they were not open to immediately planning the work to be done up to that point.

Second, I listened to the same experts and read the same expert report. Even though at the beginning I was not at all convinced about accessibility when mental illness is the only reason given, that is not what the experts stated in this report. We will continue our work and our soul-searching.

My colleague says that the government is ideologically driven, but the government can speak for itself. I believe that my colleague's speech is very ideological because he cites just one part of the report. When we examine the set of criteria to be met for someone with a mental health issue to gain access, we see that it is available to a very small number of people. People with suicidal ideation do not fall into that category.

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

Madam Chair, I respect the member for Montcalm, who has made many important contributions to that committee, but I have to say that I am confused as to what he is saying, as if we are somehow delaying this. The committee agreed that we needed more time to study the many complex issues, and now what we have is a sunset clause that will expire at the same time that we are tabling a report.

That is incredible when we are talking about an issue like life and death. It underscores the need for why the government needs to extend the sunset clause so that we protect vulnerable people, ensure that we get this right and ensure that people do not fall through the cracks. After all, we are talking about life and death.

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

Madam Chair, we would all agree in the House that we are in a mental health crisis. We would all agree that there have been no federal government resources applied to provide supports for Canadians who are suffering from this mental health and addiction crisis, dozens of whom are dying every day.

Would my colleague agree, as a representative of the Conservative Party, to having the House move unanimously to direct the government to provide the $4.5 billion in support for the Canadian mental health transfer immediately?

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

Madam Chair, I would concur with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby that there is inadequate federal funding. Only about 10% of all health care funding relates to mental health, so what is important is for the government to work to step that up and work collaboratively with the provinces to ensure that gaps are closed.

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

Madam Chair, I am so pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this take-note debate on mental health this evening. I will focus my comments on the challenges that our Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP veterans, and indirectly their families, face with mental health injuries.

Our veterans have unique challenges to their mental health that very few civilians face. They embody the emotional and mental toil of having been deployed to many theatres where they or their comrades face peril, injuries and death. They participate in and witness violence that they cannot and do not want to begin to share with anyone outside of those who have also lived that experience.

Many have experienced mental, physical and sexual abuse from those they thought were their mentors or had their backs no matter what. Many come home with physical and/or mental and emotional injuries after serving and struggling to cope. They struggle on a whole other level, as they know they are failing in their relationships with their spouses and children. Many struggle with trying to fit into a civilian world, where, from their life experience and perspective, they struggle to find their place.

Then there is a challenge that is so counterintuitive and disturbing to me. Having served for seven years on the veterans affairs standing committee in this place, this is something that grieves my heart and keeps me awake, as I think of the added injury sanctuary trauma inflicts on so many of our veterans.

Sanctuary trauma is what happens to the spirit and mind of a veteran when they experience the failure of the government to fulfill its promise to take care of them and their families. The number of veterans who take their own lives is a significantly higher percentage than that of the civilian population. These are the ones who have been failed the most. The recent revelation of a VAC employee pushing a veteran to choose MAID to end his struggles with a brain injury and PTSD shows just how broken our duty to care is.

I will share only one of so many instances where the needs of the veteran are undervalued because those who are making the decisions about their care failed—

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I need to interrupt the hon. member.

Is there a problem with the interpretation?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Chair, the interpreter is saying that the member is speaking far too quickly. As the member is also holding the paper near the microphone, the interpreter cannot provide the interpretation.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member is speaking a bit too fast and the papers shuffling near the microphone are causing issues for the interpreter. I will ask her to slow down a bit.

The hon. member has three minutes left.

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

Madam Chair, I have so much to say in so little time.

I will share only one of the instances where the needs of the veterans are undervalued, because those who make the decisions about their care fail to consult the best sources for the answers, answers to the dilemma of backlogs, the best treatment, and how to release, retain and enlist with dignity. I will give one example of an instance of inflicting sanctuary trauma.

An article posted by the Canadian Press on August 7 stated that the federal government is “reimbursing a record number of veterans for medical marijuana”. This article prompted VAC to immediately limit when veterans can order their product within their monthly prescription. This caused veterans to suddenly not have any marijuana products for three months and caused a loss of cannabinoid buildup. For three weeks, veterans suffered physical pain, lack of sleep, nightmares and mental anguish. Why? It was because Veterans Affairs responded to a news story without any consultation with veterans who had turned to using cannabis rather than pharmaceuticals. Every veteran had to suddenly reconfigure their usage. VAC conducted a snap internal audit and now, because of another article in September by the same journalist, veterans are going to face harder thresholds to qualify for cannabis, as well as losing certain products that they depend upon.

One veteran from my riding said, “I need dry cannabis, CBD oils, concentrates, topicals and edibles. I use each product for a specific purpose and now it will be taken away.” He asked, “Why? Is it to save money? It can't be about the veterans' health, because they didn't consider consultation with them a priority in their response to what the media 'reported'.” He spoke to the difference in quality of life for him and asked why veterans are then being required to use pharmaceuticals. He said that he felt like a zombie under those conditions, and now with his cannabis prescription his life is so much better.

This is something we need to consider and research at VAC, and we need listen to veterans. What is the difference in outcomes? What is the difference in the cost of treatments?

The government reassessed its decision and the ordering period has been changed back to the original format. However, the original decision needs to be evaluated. Who authorized this change to the ordering period, and what did they base their decision on? Whoever it was had no perspective on how they ruined thousands of veterans that day and in subsequent weeks. It sent them into a very deep state of anxiety.

The veteran who shared this issue with me is only one of many veterans who have had to face heightened anxiety, depression and battles within their minds about the value placed on their lives after service. I will end with a very brief description of his service, so that perhaps those who hear it will more deeply appreciate his amazing service.

In 1996, he joined the Canadian Forces and then after a year of boot camp in the PPCLI battle school, he was posted to the 2nd Battalion in Manitoba. From 1998 to 2004, he was deployed to Bosnia, and in 2002, to Afghanistan. He was on the first Canadian combat mission since the Korean War. He was also deployed to Operation Peregrine, a domestic firefighting mission in B.C., in 2005. He was promoted to master corporal and posted as an instructor to the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School in Quebec. In 2008, upon promotion to sergeant, he was posted to the 1st Battalion in Edmonton, where he deployed to Afghanistan as headquarter commander. Sergeant Perry attended a year-long French language course and upon—

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Unfortunately, the time is up.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne.

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

Madam Chair, having served with the member opposite on the veterans affairs committee, I would like to thank her for bringing this issue up, because it is incredibly important. I know that she ran out of time, and so I would like to give her a moment if she would like to finish her thoughts.

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

Madam Chair, I will continue with the veteran's service.

Upon promotion to warrant officer, he was posted back to the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School where he was course commander for the next generation of army officers. In 2014, he survived a domestic terrorist attack in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec. He was the “other person”. After that event, he retired in December 2016. Throughout his career, he deployed on countless exercises and training courses. He has earned three Operational Service Medals as well as individual recognition, having received the Canadian Forces' Decoration, the Sacrifice Medal and the Governor General's citation. He currently resides in my riding, in Spalding, with his wife. I think this is a man we need to listen to.

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

Madam Chair, does the member agree that as part of the conversation we are having this evening about mental health, it is important that we look at the holistic picture around mental illness prevention and invest in the social determinants of health, such as housing, livable income, healthy and nutritious foods?

I wonder if you could offer some thoughts around the importance of wraparound supports for Canadians.

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would ask members to address their questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to members.

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

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

Madam Chair, it is absolutely imperative that we create an environment, a culture and a society where people's basic needs are met. Certainly, in this circumstance, all of those things apply. A veteran without a home cannot heal. A veteran with family concerns struggles. It is a known fact that when veterans deploy, what they eat is not all that great. I went up north and experienced it.

When they get home, one of the first things they should have is an opportunity to go somewhere where their bodies get to heal and they get the food, nutrition and supports they need. In the broader sense as well, that is of absolute importance.

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

Madam Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for her passion on this file.

Since we were elected, she has been one of the loudest voices in terms of standing up for veterans who were prescribed mefloquine and the mental injuries they have faced from that drug.

While we are on the topic of veterans, we know that when our veterans serve, their families do as well. Perhaps the member could talk about some of the mental health challenges that families of veterans face as well.

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

Madam Chair, I so appreciate the work that my colleague does on this file.

That is one of the things that broadens that sense of sanctuary trauma for our veterans. They come home; they know they are not well; they want to get well; they see what they are doing within their own families and their spouses and children suffering greatly. It makes it that much worse for the veteran when they realize that. Sometimes I honestly think that is the tipping point for many of them.

Therefore, it is absolutely crucial that we realize that when we send someone into theatre, we are sending the whole family, and we need to make sure they are cared for in ways that they ask us to care for them.

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

Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond Hill.

This is a hard conversation for many us in this chamber, many of us. It is tough to follow my colleague, who just gave an incredible speech about veterans.

As many people in this chamber know, I am the mother of two serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, the mother-in-law of a member of the Canadian Armed Forces now, the daughter of a firefighter and the spouse of a firefighter. As I said in 2016 when the incredible member for Cariboo—Prince George brought forward Bill C-211, I was one of the first members of the government to say I am in, because, unfortunately, PTSD has a chair at my kitchen table.

When we come together tonight to talk about mental health, we are talking with one voice. Whether it be occupational stress from serving in the Canadian Armed Forces, emergency responders or people who face trauma, we all have someone in our lives who has suffered from mental illness, maybe even someone in this room, and we need to share those stories. We need to be together when it comes to mental health.

The last two years of the pandemic were really difficult for some people. Our young people had a lot of difficulties. When I talk with parents, I see that they fear for their children.

We need to make sure the supports are there when they are needed, and not three weeks later and not here as a referral paper. I am delighted that we are going to be moving forward with a three-digit suicide hotline number, thanks to my friend from Cariboo—Prince George, because when time is of the essence those supports need to be there.

This debate is so important because people are feeling anxious, whether it is because of the pandemic or because of inflation and the rising cost of living, which is a huge stressor. Financial insecurity and breakdowns of relationships all play a factor in suicide ideation. We have heard of this.

Therefore, we need to come together. We will put the partisanship aside, and together we are going to come up with a solution to get the supports to the people who need them and the families who are watching, because the families are the first who are seeing it. We have heard this time and time again. For the veteran who is suffering in their basement, self-medicating because they are hurting, it is the families who are dealing with it and looking for help, and we need to be there for them.

I am committing tonight, in front of my colleagues around this chamber, that I will always stand to support those who need us. We did it in the past. Let us continue to do this. Let us get it right. Let us make sure those who are suffering have the support they need when they need it and that those who care about them are getting the supports. We have all received those calls in our offices to talk to that person. I am not trained in this field, but when I get the call that there is a veteran in crisis, I am taking the call. We have all been there.

I want to thank the opposition for bringing this debate forward. Again, as my colleague said, it is not a debate; I think we all agree. Therefore, let us put it aside. Let us figure out how we can get this done, because coming out the pandemic my fear is that the need for mental health supports is going to be much larger than we are even anticipating. We need to be ready. We cannot be reactive. We need to be proactive in this regard.

I know we can do this. We have done this before, and we can do this. When it comes to mental health, we all agree. With that, I welcome questions.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Chair, the last two speeches focused on our veterans. I think every single person in this chamber can agree that the veterans who have fought for this country and who have served this country deserve the best. With the $4.5 billion, what would the hon. member like to see sent to veterans? What would she like to see be the priority for the government when it comes to our veterans and mental health?

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

Madam Chair, I want to thank my fellow military mom for that question. It is pretty hard for me to put a price tag on this, to be honest, because that was the reason I ran in 2015. I was not happy about supports available for veterans. I knew my kids in the service would be taken care of, but God forbid they should need support when they got out. Would it be there? Therefore, I am really a bit biased on this one because, to me, one cannot put a price tag on the supports we need to give those who put their lives on the line for our freedom and the families who support them. I cannot answer that with a dollar figure, because to me one cannot put a price on that.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Chair, I appreciate my hon. colleague's impassioned speech. I know the member knows about my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke's bill on changing the National Defence Act and some of the wording in regard to members of the armed forces who commit self-harm. It goes back to some archaic language and, ultimately, when there was conscription. It was to prevent soldiers from harming themselves so they did not have to go to war.

We know now, in this present modern context, that it holds a much bigger mental health issue. The army, the navy and the air force all treat it in a way that is punishable, so we are looking to change that. The New Democrats have a bill. I would like the member's opinion on that bill and to know if she will be supporting it.