SoVote

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

Oct/20/22 7:47:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I did not have a chance to cross the way and shake my colleague's hand after the speech he gave earlier, but I think he touched everyone tonight in a very real way, and I say that to him sincerely. I am not sure of the specifics of the particular case the member raises. I am happy to have a further conversation with him and learn a little more about what he is talking about there. However, I have always said that medical assistance in dying, or MAID, ought to be, of course, a last resort. When people need help, it is incumbent that they receive the supports necessary for them to live a dignified life, and I think that everything the government has done as part of the MAID policy has been in that direction. Certainly, it is fundamental that people have access to those basic needs, particularly housing, to have that dignity which should be guaranteed to them. MAID must be a last resort, and I have always felt that way.

176 words

All Topics

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

Mr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC)

Oct/20/22 7:56:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, like most Canadians, those in the mental health community are also divided on the issue of MAID. Does the member opposite believe that doctors should be forced to provide MAID referrals if they do not personally believe in it? I would like to have the hon. member's personal views on this. Are his views in line with the views of the Liberal Party?

66 words

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

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

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

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)

Oct/20/22 8:31:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, my hon. colleague across the way was the first member from the government who stepped forward to do whatever she could on her side to champion my bill, Bill C-211, and she has assisted us along the way with our other initiatives we have put forth. This is a question I asked one of her colleagues earlier, and I think it is relevant now because I know her passion in standing up for our veterans. Earlier this year, we found out that a veteran who was in need and phoned Veterans Affairs was counselled by the Veterans Affairs employee to perhaps consider MAID. That is an absolute travesty. I would like to give our hon. colleague some time to give her views on that.

127 words

All Topics