SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 114 - Oct/20/22

Oct/20/22 7:58:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, if I heard the question correctly, and the member is asking if it is a matter of my applying pressure to the government to ensure more long-term stable funding, the answer is absolutely yes.

37 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Oct/20/22 7:59:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I appreciate my colleague, whom I work closely with on the committee. We are in a crisis in this country. No family or community has been left untouched. As many have mentioned tonight, dozens of Canadians die every day as a result of the mental health and addictions crises. This is a crisis that has had a profound impact on so many families and so many communities. The government acted so promptly for the banking sector when COVID hit, with $750 billion in liquidity supports. However, for this mental health crisis, which is an acute crisis that is killing Canadians, we have still not seen the Canadian mental health transfer. Why is the government so slow to provide those vital supports that so many Canadians need when it was so quick to meet the needs of bankers and the banking industry?

143 words

Mr. Michael Coteau

Oct/20/22 8:00:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the member and I do work on the committee together. I know his question is sincere, and he has a sincere approach to looking for solutions, so I want to thank him for the work he is doing. The member has really spoken to an issue that is widespread. Not only in Ontario, across this country or in America, but also around the world, there is a stigma that has been traditionally attached to mental health funding. It was something that was hidden in most cases, and over the last few decades we have seen a transformation in the removal of stigma. Governments are now looking for ways to better position themselves to look for solutions in a very open and transparent way. I am proud to be part of a government that is taking this approach.

139 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Oct/20/22 8:01:02 p.m.
Watch

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.

528 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)

Oct/20/22 8:06:12 p.m.
Watch

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.

153 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Oct/20/22 8:07:21 p.m.
Watch

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—

141 words

The Assistant Deputy Chair

Oct/20/22 8:08:25 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Montcalm.

5 words

Montcalm

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Oct/20/22 8:08:29 p.m.
Watch

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.

220 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Oct/20/22 8:10:03 p.m.
Watch

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.

134 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Oct/20/22 8:11:01 p.m.
Watch

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?

88 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Oct/20/22 8:11:42 p.m.
Watch

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.

57 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Oct/20/22 8:12:10 p.m.
Watch

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—

374 words

The Assistant Deputy Chair

Oct/20/22 8:14:02 p.m.
Watch

I need to interrupt the hon. member. Is there a problem with the interpretation?

14 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Oct/20/22 8:14:08 p.m.
Watch

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.

31 words

The Assistant Deputy Chair

Oct/20/22 8:14:17 p.m.
Watch

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.

38 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall

Oct/20/22 8:14:43 p.m.
Watch

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—

630 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Chair

Oct/20/22 8:18:09 p.m.
Watch

Unfortunately, the time is up. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne.

16 words

Mrs. Sherry Romanado (Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, Lib.)

Oct/20/22 8:18:21 p.m.
Watch

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.

55 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall

Oct/20/22 8:18:45 p.m.
Watch

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.

128 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Oct/20/22 8:19:57 p.m.
Watch

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.

67 words