Rachael Thomas

[Carbon Pricing, February 26th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the minister across the way had something to say to me before and perhaps would say it on the record.

[Carbon Pricing, February 26th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, you can call them to account.

[Carbon Pricing, February 26th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that my colleagues across the way would clap for a 23% increase in the carbon tax when Canadians are lining up at food banks in insurmountable numbers. Millions of Canadians cannot afford to put food on their table and these folks over here stand and clap. That is shameful. When will they grow—

[Carbon Pricing, February 26th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the contrast could not be more stark when it comes to the Liberals versus the Conservatives and their opposition to the Canadian people—

[Carbon Pricing, February 26th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, stop the crime and fix the budget. That is our commitment to Canadians.

Meanwhile, the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister cannot help but skyrocket the crime and increase the corruption. Of course, he is just not worth the cost because he is causing it to go through the roof. He is incredibly hypocritical because for him pollution is free. He can jet-set around the world while Canadians continue to pay. On April 1, they will see an increase of 23% on the carbon tax.

My question is simple: Will the Liberals finally side with Conservatives and scrap the tax?

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 13th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I cannot help but point out the obvious. She is a member of the NDP, which is currently in a coalition with the Liberal government, so in part, it is actually her doing that we are here in this place having this discussion at the eleventh hour.

I would encourage her to perhaps work with her party to act differently and to actually act on behalf of Canadians. That said, she is going to have to enter into a conversation with her coalition government to ask it what is going to happen on March 17.

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 13th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, as Conservatives, our desire is to be on the side of vulnerable Canadians and to be their greatest advocate. Our desire is to listen to the pleas of those who came before the House. That is our job. We have been elected to represent our constituents to the best of our ability, so when it came to hearing testimony on medical assistance in dying being extended to those with a mental illness, we leaned in, listened and did the hard work.

Furthermore, we went out and listened to Canadians beyond this place, sitting down with them in our constituency offices and meeting with them during town hall meetings. Our leader also went on tour across the country, leaning in and hearing the concerns of Canadians, and this came up as one that Canadians do not want. They do not want medical assistance in dying to be extended to those who have a mental illness. Instead, they want to see greater support for those who struggle. They want to see a better medical system put in place. They want to see better health care provisions put in place. They want to see greater support from society as a whole.

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 13th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to point to the supports his government has offered to those with mental illness. What we heard in this place, in Parliament, from witness after witness is that the supports are inadequate. People desperately need more support.

On this side of the House, I think of my hon. colleague, whose name I am not allowed to use, and his tremendous effort in advocating for support for those who live with a mental illness and his tremendous effort with bringing in a three-digit suicide line to help prevent suicide, and of course we know that is most often associated with a mental illness.

Not only are we going to make tremendous efforts when we are in government, but the reality is that we do not wait. We are already making a meaningful difference for Canadians.

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 13th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the number of Canadians ending their lives through medical assistance in dying is accelerating at a rate that outpaces that in any other country. Canada's most recent annual report on medical assistance in dying, which I will call MAID from this point forward, shows that MAID deaths are actually up by 30% from just one year ago. This is not just a one-time occasion or occurrence. Rather, this is actually a trend. Year over year, we are seeing a rapid increase.

The matter at hand today, in the most literal sense, is a matter of life and death. Around the world, people are watching Canada and the debate taking place in this House. They are doing so with an overwhelming belief that what the current government is considering is, in fact, reckless. That is extending medical assistance in dying to those with a mental illness. This topic deserves our utmost attention today in this place and, my hope would be, beyond.

Last spring, the Liberals created legislation that would grant MAID to those struggling with a mental illness, starting on March 17, which is only a few weeks away. Thanks to the rallying cry of medical experts, those who struggle with a mental illness and concerned Canadians from far and wide, along with Conservative members of Parliament, the government has been forced into a position where they have actually had to hit the pause button. This is not permanent; it is only temporary, lasting for three years. We will then see this legislation back before the House, with the current government desiring to offer medical assistance in dying to those who struggle with a mental illness.

When considering whether a mental disorder is irremediable, Parliament has heard from clinicians, who stated that it is only predictable 50% of the time. In other words, 50% of the time, clinicians are able to say that the individual will not recover from the mental illness. The other 50% of the time, they actually get it wrong. It is not the same as a brain tumour, for example, that can be seen on a scan, where there is evidence that can be judged and physical circumstances that can be known. Mental illness does not operate that way. While doctors might be correct 50% of the time, this means that, with regard to a prognosis, they are also wrong 50% of the time. To be very frank, the toss of a coin feels like a rather sad, wrong way to make a life or death decision. That is really what we are talking about: the toss of a coin, where 50% of the time, they get heads, and 50% of the time, they get tails. That is how this decision would be made if we were to move forward with medical assistance in dying for those who have a mental illness. This is absolutely wrong. That Parliament would even consider it is deeply troubling.

Of course, we know that this has nothing to do with whether our physicians and our psychiatrists are functioning in an adequate manner. It has everything to do with the fact that mental illnesses are incredibly complex and difficult to understand.

It is important, as we engage in this debate, to consider what medical experts are saying. We heard from Physicians Together with Vulnerable Canadians, which reported, “Given that there is no medical evidence to reliably predict which patients with a mental illness will not get better, MAID for mental illness will end the lives of patients who would have recovered.”

The Canadian Centre for Suicide Prevention echoed this, reporting, “There is no consensus on the meaning of irremediability for any mental disorder.” Dr. Gaind, chief of psychiatry at Sunnybrook Hospital, raised the alarm; he said, we “cannot predict irremediability when it comes to mental illness”.

Dr. Zivot agreed, saying, “mental illness lacks a strict definition and therefore, by lack of definition, can never be grievous and irremediable”. He went on to say that “if MAID becomes a treatment option within mental health care, the bond of trust and the pledge between doctor and patient is destroyed”.

Those who live with a mental illness need hope, not death. They need us to believe in them when they are unable to believe in themselves.

It is incumbent upon us, as a society, to extend hope, to offer support and to give treatment, not death. When we consider extending medical assistance in dying to those who are suffering from mental illness, many Canadians are left extremely vulnerable. When an offer of death is extended to those who are struggling, we communicate a message that there is really no hope and no opportunity for recovery; we communicate that the best relief would be to exit this life. That lacks compassion. It is deeply troubling.

Laurel Walker has been very public about her story. She talks about her darkest days of living with a mental illness, about suicide being an ideation of hers, day after day. Then she talks about the fact that she had this glimmer of hope that somehow kept her alive. She warned Parliament that, if we were to go in this direction of legalizing medical assistance in dying for those who have a mental illness, we would be robbing them of that hope and sending this grave message that, really, death is their only option.

Dr. Sareen offered the same warning and shared that making MAID available for mental disorders would undermine suicide prevention efforts and lead to unnecessary deaths. He said:

When a society makes MAID available, the population believes it is a way to end suffering. In other jurisdictions that have had MAID available for mental disorders, not only are there deaths due to MAID, but there are also deaths related to non-MAID suicides.

In other words, we see an increase not only in medical assistance in dying rates but also in suicide in general. There is this lack of hope and this message conveyed by society that there is no future.

As Canadians, we can do better. I dare say we must do better. We cannot give up on people such as Laurel, who are fighting for their very lives. These folks are in desperate need of hope and help. They want treatment, not death.

Those struggling with their mental health deserve that element of support. Rather than looking to facilitate the deaths of fellow Canadians who are suffering, we must focus on how we can better provide the needed treatment. In an article, psychiatrist John Maher is quoted as expressing that “Mental illness is treatable, and death is not treatment.”

We know that the problem is rarely only mental illness. It is often within the larger context of social challenges as well, whether this is not having basic necessities, such as housing, or a social structural support that is not available to these folks. Again, we have a responsibility as a society to make sure that those things are available to these individuals. Death is not the answer.

To my fellow colleagues in this place, I would make the following plea: Let us not just simply push the temporary pause button, as if to say their life is worth something now but, in a few years, it may no longer be. It is as if to say that the flip of a coin might not be acceptable now, but maybe we will flip a coin in three years; that might be okay. Rather, let us commit to permanently valuing those who live with a mental illness, and let us make sure that they are forever offered the adequate health care supports that are needed. Death is not that.

Christie Pollock submitted testimony calling for great caution. She is a 30-year-old who has her own struggle. She talks about the hope that she is now able to offer, because she runs a support group. Then she talks about the fact that, if medical assistance in dying had been offered to her, she might not be here. She goes on to say that, sure, she has her struggles, and she is not healed, but she has found a mix of therapy and medication that is getting her through. Her days are filled with hope. It is not just hope for herself; she is also able to offer hope to others.

Madam Speaker and members of this House, this is where we should wish to land, where the people of this place offer hope to Canadians, not death.

[Public Safety, February 8th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right that this is not something to be made light of, but that is exactly what the Liberal government's policies have done.

Unfortunately, after eight years of the Liberal government, the number of sexual assault cases in the country has skyrocketed by 72%. That is a very large number, and that is many women and girls who are affected. What makes this even worse is that so many of these crimes are committed by individuals who are out on bail, who should not be. The reason they are is because of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime policies.

The Liberals are putting women in danger. It is the Liberal government's decision to do that. When will the Prime Minister take it seriously and do something—