Debates of Feb. 15th, 2023

Criminal Code

[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?