Kyle Seeback

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2023]

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.

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2023]

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.

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2023]

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.

[Carbon Pricing, February 10th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I can say that whatever the Liberals are targeting, it is not working. Why do they not try targeting this, the 415% increase in seniors using the Orangeville Food Bank since 2017. That is what we get with eight years of the government. There are also the 45% of Canadians who are within $200 of not being able to make ends meet. Why do they not target them? Instead, they are going to triple the carbon tax and make everything even worse.

When will the government stop hurting families and do something to help them by allowing them to keep the heat on and cut that darn carbon tax?

[Hospice Dufferin, February 8th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, Hospice Dufferin is partnering with eight local restaurants and cafés during February to host the Hot Chocolate Festival. The purpose of this is to help support Hospice Dufferin, which is an amazing organization in my riding of Dufferin—Caledon.

Community support is absolutely critical, because Hospice Dufferin gets only about 60% of its funding from the government. It has to make up the rest in the community in order to offer the services to the people of Dufferin.

For all of February, eight local restaurants and cafés are going to have their own signature drink to support the Hot Chocolate Festival and Hospice Dufferin, with $1 from each drink going to Hospice Dufferin. People can find out where they can get their special drink at hospicedufferin.com.

Come on, Dufferin—Caledon, let us go buy those drinks and support Hospice Dufferin.

[Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, February 7th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, the first question I have when looking at this bill is, “Why did we end up here?” Why did we end up with a member who has to put forward legislation that would embed in legislation no further negotiation of access to supply-managed industries in Canada?

The answer is that, after eight years of a Liberal government, the supply-managed sector in this country believes they have been failed and they are in need of additional protection. The Liberal government, in successive trade agreements, has continued to negotiate additional access to supply-managed industries here in Canada, and the industries have had enough. They have lost faith in the government.

They are asking if someone could please put forward legislation that would protect them into the future. I one hundred per cent understand why they feel that way, because in trade deal after trade deal, more and more of their industry gets negotiated away by the Liberal government, which will stand up to say that it respects supply management and its pillars, but will then sign trade deals that do the exact opposite. A member in this Parliament has said, “Enough is enough,” and they have introduced this legislation.

In Dufferin—Caledon, the number one driver of economic activity is the agricultural sector, and we have incredible dairy and poultry farms in my riding. I have had the pleasure of visiting and touring those farms on many occasions. Those farmers work extraordinarily hard to deliver the incredibly high-quality products into the Canadian market.

Their biggest fear is what the government is going to do next to make their lives more difficult, whether it is tripling the carbon tax or the various other ways it makes farming more difficult. They are concerned. Farmers have reached out to me to say that they want this legislation to be supported so that they would know that, when the Liberal government negotiates a new trade deal, they would not find themselves giving up more and more market access, which makes it more and more difficult for them to run their farms.

That is why we are here. It is another failure of the Liberal government to stand up for Canadians. In this case, it is Canadian farmers.

From this side, I think this bill deserves to be studied. It should go to committee, so we could hear what the implications are of enacting something like this in statute. I know there are some in the agricultural sector who would say that they are not thrilled with this. I think we should hear from everyone. Let us hear what they all have to say to decide whether or not this is something that, as a Parliament, we should put forward.

I want to come back to this being a pretty sad day to be here, when an industry in this country feels like the government does not have its back going into trade agreements and wants to stop the government from having the ability to even negotiate any further access. They have completely lost faith in the government.

I have the same view as those in the dairy sector and all the supply-managed sectors. I have lost faith in the government as well. I look forward to this bill proceeding to committee, where it could be studied in great detail.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the member is right. Those are exactly the same charges that farmers in my riding pay for drying grain. Maybe the Liberal members do not understand that they have to dry grain. They pay enormous carbon taxes as a result of doing that. What happens then? The price of grain goes up. On whatever crop was being used, the price is going to go up.

The carbon tax makes everything more expensive, and farmers do not get more money back than they pay in. The result is higher prices at the grocery store, families going to food banks and families being within $200 of not being able to make ends meet. The Liberals should really give Canadians a break and cut the carbon tax.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, all companies in our country pay taxes. When they have good years, they pay a lot of taxes. When they do not have good years, they pay very little taxes. That is how the system is absolutely designed. All companies should pay their fair share of taxes. If companies are engaging in profiteering, that should be examined. However, the tax system is pretty clear: If one makes money, one pays taxes.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the member seems to not understand that oil and gas companies pay enormous amounts of taxes and they fund social programs and other things across the country.

Is the member saying that when they have a good year we should tax them more? Is he saying that in a bad year the government should be paying those companies some money?

If those companies have a good year, they pay a lot of taxes. If they have a bad year, they do not. That is how the system works. If he does not like it, maybe he should come up with a better system.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the carbon tax is punitive. That is why we want to scrap it. People living in a rural area, heating their homes with propane and driving long distances to work are getting absolutely demolished by the carbon tax, and the Liberals will wax on, saying, “So what?”

The carbon tax is designed to hurt rural Canadians, and it does. That is why we want to scrap it. It is an awful carbon tax. The Liberals should be embarrassed to keep propping it up. They should be taking responsibility for what they are doing to Canadian families and the affordability crisis. The carbon tax is one thing they could do to fix it, but they are so stubborn and ideological that they will not.