44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 13, 2023 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, for such a thoughtful speech, one that anticipates much of what I want to say.
We have not done enough in the year since Bill C-7 passed to know with any degree of certainty that we have lived up to our obligations when passing that act to fully study what it would mean to extend medical assistance in dying to those who are dealing with deep suffering that comes from a mental health issue, not from a medical diagnosis of traditional medicines, such as ALS, cancer or the other cases that moved us forward on this trajectory.
I want to briefly canvass what brought us here and the way in which the Parliament of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada have dealt with medical assistance in dying, and I want to suggest, in closing, that when one looks to the Supreme Court of Canada for guidance, I do not believe we can say that the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance takes us to the availability of MAID in cases of deep mental health distress.
Going way back, as the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I want to reflect on one of the champions, heroes or, as one might even say, martyrs on the issue of access to medical assistance in dying. I speak of Sue Rodriguez. She lived in North Saanich, in the electoral district that I am honoured to represent. She had ALS. She famously said, “[W]hose body is this? Who owns my life?” She went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada back in 1993 in an effort to get access to the alleviation of suffering from a disease that would kill her. This was not in doubt. However, the Supreme Court of Canada, in 1993, denied her request.
As others have mentioned in this place over the last couple of days of discussion, a colleague and friend of many of ours and a dear friend of mine, Svend Robinson, stayed with Sue Rodriguez when a doctor assisted her illegally, and she took her own life, with the doctor's assistance, in probably the first public case of medical assistance in dying in Canada.
The courts took a long time to change, and that decision in 1993 was not changed until 2015 in the Carter case. In the Carter case, the Supreme Court of Canada found, taking a different view, that the charter rights in section 7 to life, liberty and security of the person were violated by not allowing a person to make such a decision and to have access to medical assistance in dying. The Carter case changed things by putting squarely to the Parliament of Canada that it had to deal with this.
I will quote from the Carter case. The Supreme Court of Canada said, “competent adults who seek such assistance as a result of a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes enduring and intolerable suffering”. That was the basis for creating legal access to medical assistance in dying.
When Bill C-14 went through, I tried so hard to put forward amendments saying we have to allow advance directives. It was not right not to allow them for someone who knows they are terminally ill and are facing incredible suffering. It is their choice and they should be able to access medical assistance in dying with an advance directive. However, back when Bill C-14 went through, this was rejected. My amendments were rejected in the House as well. Similar amendments were then passed in the Senate, and we all recall it came back here without those amendments having been accepted.
Bill C-7 repaired that but opened the door to something entirely different. I do think it is entirely different to say that when people are suffering incredibly and intolerably due to a deep, chronic and unsolvable mental health condition, they should also have access to medical assistance in dying.
I will go back and say what the political promises were when we started down this road. I first want to address the medical conditions.
When Bill C-14 was first debated, a lot of members in this place were asking about palliative care: Would people choose medical assistance in dying if they had the option for palliative care? We heard many promises from the government benches that we would see increased funding for palliative care. That has not happened. That is one thing that concerns me greatly.
We have also heard, since we passed Bill C-7, that there would be more supports for mental health. That has not happened either.
What would we do if we were serious about making sure that every Canadian could exercise, fully, their rights, under section 7 of the charter, to life, liberty and security of the person?
At least, one would know that the health care system should be working well. I am pleased to see that the premiers accepted the federal offer today. I hope that the federal government will defend our public health care system with every ounce of its energy and make sure that the deals with the provinces are specific and tied to outcomes and results.
However, our health care system is in trouble. I was just talking to an incredible indigenous woman. I will not say her name; it was a private conversation. She is Cree. She lost a dear friend recently because that Cree dear friend could not get access to medical care in time to diagnose and treat her cancer. She leaves two small children behind.
The health care system in the country is not equal, any more than the litany of deeply racist and distressing conditions in which the system works against justice for indigenous peoples. We all know it. In the context of the health care system, how can we not know it?
In terms of mental health care supports, we know even more deeply that the suicide rates among youth in this country are a huge source of concern. We know that mental health issues have been worsened among our youth, through the pandemic, through isolation, through all kinds of things, through being preyed on by social media.
We know that our schools, universities and post-graduate programs are failing young people because they cannot get the mental health supports that they need when they need them. They need help to avoid addictions and to kick addictions. Our young people need so much help and we are failing them.
Opening up MAID is not a solution to solvable mental health care issues where we are just falling down on the job because we are not providing the mental health supports that we have promised over the years.
What would we do if we wanted to be serious about section 7 rights? We would bring in a guaranteed livable income, to ensure that no Canadian is living in poverty, poverty being the number one social determinant of ill health, in terms of physical health and mental health. We would address poverty and end it through guaranteed livable income.
We would do more, as I mentioned, for the end-of-life issues and access to palliative care. There is such a thing as having a good death. We do not like talking about death in our society. We are all supposed to be young and preferably sexy forever. Let us face it: people get old and it is a lovely experience. It is a good thing to be healthy in old age and enjoy it right up to the moment when whatever one thinks is going to happen to oneself happens: meet one's makers or feed the worms, whatever. A good death is a good thing.
Medical assistance in dying does give people that option of a good death, surrounded by family, feeling loved. I am very supportive of the work that we have done in Bill C-14 and half of what we did in Bill C-7, but where are the mental health supports?
Again, to the point that the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay made, I totally agree. I say yes to housing, to supports and to ending poverty.
However, I do think that we have to explore and open up. In the next year, let us get serious at looking at non-traditional therapies for people dealing with what appears to be irremediable depression. Do psychedelics make a difference? I am not going to prescribe. As the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay said, do not take health advice from politicians.
However, the evidence is coming in on using such products as psilocybin to actually trigger something that results not just in a bit less suffering and mental health conditions. There are certainly papers out there that are peer-reviewed and very interesting, that one can cure depression. I certainly would not want to turn my back on a potential cure and then embrace medical assistance in dying for people who could be cured.
Neither do I want to turn my back on people who are suffering and who are saying that we are making them wait another year and asking why we are doing that. These are not easy issues but these issues, life and death issues, are at the heart of the sacred and they are at the heart of our work in Parliament.
1588 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of speakers make reference to the issue of mental health and this member, the leader of the Green Party, also referred to palliative care. The greatest contribution that Ottawa can do in regard to the areas of mental health, health in general, palliative care and hospice care is provide the financial resources and then use the Canada Health Act and raise the profile of the issue itself. We can put a checkmark on all three of those with respect to the last five or six years of this government. At the end of the day, we do need to see more working together with provinces and indigenous communities, in terms of continuously raising the profile of the issue to make sure the resources are being properly allocated.
When she reflects on the legislation and the special joint committee that is out there, is there something specific that the leader of the Green Party would filter out or like to see?
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague and parliamentary secretary's first set of comments, absolutely I am looking to the federal government to defend public single-payer universal health care as under the Canada Health Act. I am looking at threats to that system. For as much as people say we have to do it because things are bad right now, that is the work that has never stopped to undermine our public health care system in Canada by the forces for privatization, and they must be resisted.
I would throw one door open here. Before deciding that this is up to a group of experts, please let us get a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to ask whether extending MAID to mental health conditions falls within the Supreme Court of Canada's understanding of the ruling in Carter.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about some opportunities and she also cited broken promises when it came to palliative care. As members know, I was here last Monday and the Monday before and would have been here tonight on Adjournment Proceedings, to drag the government here to talk about mental health, but it was disrupted so I am back.
I asked the minister about mental health just last week. She cited:
Through the proposed bilateral agreements on the shared health priorities, we are working with the provinces and territories to integrate mental health and substance use as a full and equal part of our universal health care system.
However, when it comes to the reality on the ground, the Liberals have still not delivered on their promised mental health transfer of $4.5 billion. Even the agreements that they signed with the provinces today do not assure that.
Does my colleague agree that we need, enshrined in the legislation, parity between mental and physical health to have a proper conversation in this House about expanding medical assistance in dying for those whose sole identified underlying medical condition is a mental illness?
196 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this is one of my favourite recommendations from medical doctors around mental health. Because the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni is from such a beautiful place in the world, I do not know if he knows that Dr. Melissa Lem prescribes visiting national parks to get out into nature.
To answer the member's question simply, yes, I agree with parity.
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands regarding her relationship with Sue Rodriguez and the first battle toward medical assistance in dying that took place decades ago, which has brought us here.
The expert panel that was convened reported in the summer and outlined a number of different areas in which the systems are ready. As a government, we have heard from a number of different parties about the need for an extension. I wonder if my friend could advise what specific issue she has with the expert panel report with respect to medical assistance in dying, in respect of mental health as the sole underlying condition.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, yes, there is an expert panel looking at the medical and mental health conditions, but I think we have skipped a step in making sure what we are doing remains constitutional.
33 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-39 regarding medical assistance in dying, which proposes to delay for another year the implementation of provisions that would expand the availability of medical assistance in dying to those whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. I think we really need to start looking at how we got to this stage.
It went to the Senate and we had no issues with it, to some degree. Most of Parliament was fine with it. However, when it came back, the Senate had added in a provision with respect to one's mental state.
I started thinking about the many people I have spoken with over the years when I was either a mayor or now as a member of Parliament. When people would phone me, they would usually start the conversation easily by talking about whatever issues they were dealing with. Then they would start talking about themselves. I do not know if it is me, my voice or my appearance, but they would open up to me and start telling me about how they were going through these troubles and the difficulties they were facing. It was not necessarily financial. Sometimes that was the trigger, but most times it was their mental state itself. As they would start talking, I would start getting very worried about people like this who have a mental condition and whether there was somebody there to help them. As they kept talking, sometimes they would break down crying or get angry, and that would change throughout the whole conversation.
However, as I was dealing with them, I would hope that they had some kind of assistance from some medical professional. If they did not, then who would be there to help them? I am worried this is the help they are potentially looking for, but I hope that will never be the case. When I was speaking with these individuals, I would usually try to steer the conversation gently and ask if they had a psychologist or psychiatrist working with them. They would say something like they did, but that person does not know anything, and they would start getting angry again. Then I would start to get worried because I did not want to see them in that state of agitation. I wanted to try to help them as best I could. I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist, so I do not have the expertise, but I would try to at least direct them to where there was help.
Probably one of my biggest concerns with respect to this legislation is the fact that we are relying on our medical professionals more than ever. We all know that there is an extreme shortage of doctors and nurses right across this country, so when we start talking about people having the ability to apply for MAID due to their mental state, how is that going to help them if there are no doctors to assist them?
My next concern is whether we are really there to assist them, to cure them or help them out of that state. That to me is where it seems like we as a society have failed on so many fronts.
When I was talking to a grade 10 class during COVID in 2021, the students asked what I thought the number one issue in Canada was going to be when we came out of COVID. I said that was very easy because the number one issue was going to be the mental state of Canadians. It was surprising that the class all responded with, “Really?” I asked them what they thought it was going to be and they said that it was the economy. I said that was not something we really had to worry about and that once people started getting out again and businesses started opening up that, yes, it may be slow at the start, but eventually we would get back to some sense of normal again, but that the mental state of Canadians was something that was going to be with us for years. That was just during COVID.
Unfortunately, before COVID, the mental state of Canadians was suffering. That is something the current government has yet to help with. It promised in the last election that it was going to put more money toward the mental state of Canadians and assist with more doctors, medications and facilities to help those people. However, as we debate here today, it seems that it is easier for the government to offer medical assistance in dying instead of assisting them in achieving the mental state they so deserve.
I have spoken to many people, and they have asked what this MAID legislation is about. Why are so many people concerned about it? I said it is not so much about MAID. It is more about the addition of someone with a mental illness, without a foreseeable death, to actually apply for MAID. People have given me looks, asking what I mean by that. I have said that someone who has a mental illness, depending on what mental illness they have, may or may not qualify for MAID. I would still get people asking why there would not be a doctor, psychologist or somebody there to help them, as opposed to offering them MAID. I replied that that was a very good point and that it is one of the reasons I am speaking out against this legislation.
With moving Bill C-39 forward to extend it for another year, Canadians also need to understand some of the legislation that we are putting forward in the House and how it is not necessarily helping all Canadians. I am not going to bring up someone who has ALS or another disease. That is their right, and that is absolutely fine. To me, they are in charge of their faculties. However, when someone has a mental illness, my biggest concern is whether they are mentally capable of making these decisions.
I know someone will talk to me later and say there will be two psychiatrists evaluating them. Everyone knows that people, when they have a mental condition, have different states of mind where they may seem better at one time, and then they may seem worse or go into a depression, whatever the case may be. Is someone truly getting a fair assessment of the condition someone is dealing with at the time? To me, it is very cold and heartless that people can say, yes, we think someone is acceptable for medically assisted dying, as opposed to really diving into the areas as to how we can help them.
Over the years, there are people who have reached out to me and it is heartbreaking. I do not know if many other MPs have had to deal with something like this, but it is a very sad state. When we start getting into all the funding, or lack of funding, to deal with a mental state. Before COVID, it was estimated that about one-third of all Canadians had had some form of mental condition at one time or another. I cannot imagine what it has grown to after COVID. Are we at 40% or 45%? I do not know the numbers, but we can see how we are escalating the mental stability of Canadians.
Is the government reaching out to them, trying to make their lives any better? I do not believe so. That is one of the reasons I am so happy that we are able to take another year to look at what we can do to either refine or change this legislation, or actually start dealing with the problem itself. We need to deal with the mental state of Canadians and get the people the help they so rightly deserve.
For people to keep living on with a mental condition, they do not get better until they get help. Without the doctors, nurses or facilities out there, there is no way Canadians are going to see a better society. When we start looking at the mental state of Canadians, there are other areas that we can possibly improve upon, such as our criminal system, because a lot of people are addicted to drugs or whatever else, but we need to start dealing with that as best as possible.
I wanted to focus more on what we can do to assist people with their mental state, as opposed to offering them MAID. We need to start getting into the real cause of the problems and the real situation on why they got to this state. If we can accomplish that, we can build a far superior society than the one we have today. As parliamentarians, our number one goal is to make Canada a much better place to live, as opposed to the alternative being proposed tonight.
1499 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to think no one inside this chamber would advocate using MAID legislation as an alternative because of a lack of services to mental health, from a federal government's perspective.
I do have a question I would put to the member. He talks about the importance of mental health, yet when we take a look at it, the government has put a great deal of emphasis and financial resources behind the issue of mental health. The Conservative Party is more inclined to say it will give provinces the money and not have any conditions at all on how they are giving the money. The member cannot say that they want to have more mental health and not say that the Conservatives are going to enforce their will with provinces by encouraging the provinces and the territories to spend more on mental health, because from the Conservative Party's perspective, they just want to hand over the money.
We believe in the Canada Health Act. We believe mental health is a part of health, so this is something I think is quite different between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Would the member, on the record today, say that he would be encouraging, through the Canada Health Act, provinces to invest more into mental health?
218 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I always do enjoy my hon. colleague's little fairy tales. He likes to talk about how great the government is doing, but if it were the case that the Liberals truly believed this, why are they not having a better effect on Canadians right now?
We have many people suffering. The Liberals promised in the last election that they were going to put more money into mental health. Did they? No, unfortunately, they did not, and that is typical for the governing party. It likes to talk a lot, but it actually does not deliver as much as it likes to talk. I can assure the House that the member sure likes to talk.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, given that Canada is founded on indigenous peoples' lands, Canada's colonial history and the impacts of its genocidal policies on indigenous peoples, does the member agree there needs to be regulations and special provisions to make sure indigenous peoples are getting the culturally appropriate, trauma-informed assessments they deserve?
51 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, very much so, that is what needs to be done. We have a different culture, completely, in Canada, that needs to be dealt with differently, and I will give her an example of that.
When I was mayor, I was also the chair of our seniors foundation, and one of our board members from the MD of Greenview had said he wanted to build an indigenous lodge right in Grand Cache. That is actually in the works right now. It is going to be 12 rooms. It is only going to be breaking ground this spring, so we are getting ahead of ourselves, but I know when he brought that forward, he said it was going to be a round building with a lot of cultural amenities, so I am very much in favour of making sure we take care of the needs of our indigenous peoples.
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect, when we talk about health care or access to mental health care, that quite often gets forgotten about or just more or less put onto the back burner. It is people living in rural Canada and the access people have to the different types of care and services they need.
I am wondering if the member wants to talk about the importance of having services for rural Canadians. That needs to also be part of the conversation when we talk about supports for mental health.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. Like I said, when I was mayor, that was one of the things we also talked about. Our county started about half an hour west of Spruce Grove. That was our closest location to get assistance for mental health, and unfortunately in rural Alberta, and I should say rural Canada for that matter, we do not have nearly the level of assistance compared to our urban partners. We need to really balance out and make sure we have equal access right across the country to deal with the mental issues in Canada.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to provide an opportunity, if I could, for the member. I realize that it was probably made in error, but just for the record, I do want to correct the statement he made of “our indigenous people.” Perhaps that was a mistake.
We know that indigenous people are not our property, and I just want to offer an opportunity for the member to correct the language he used to ensure that it is on the record what he intended to say.
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/23 8:23:00 p.m.
- Watch
While not a point of order, it is a great suggestion, which we have heard a number of times in this chamber. I did not hear it said, but if someone wanted to retract something, I would be more than happy to allow that to happen.
The hon. member for Yellowhead.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I did not mean “our” as in possession, absolutely. I just meant “people as well”. I thank the member for bringing that forward, and I do apologize for that.
35 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, right before Parliament resumed following the Christmas break, countless Canadians participated in Bell Let's Talk Day. They took the opportunity to talk about mental health, raise awareness, share stories and remind each other that it is good to offer or ask for help whenever it is needed. There are many members of Parliament from all parties who have joined this effort, and it is only fair to assume that they have done so because they sincerely wish to help people.
Every year, after the day comes and goes, it helps us realize that promoting mental health is actually a huge task and it is easier said than done. Over time, there has been some progress with how we approach mental health, but it can sometimes be discouraging to see that we still have to deal with some of the lingering problems or to know how much work there is left for us to do. It puts everything into perspective and shows that the results and decisions we make about an issue are more important than just talking about it.
In that light, Bill C-39, along with the larger issue surrounding it, is a real test for us. It forces us to consider what exactly we mean when we say that we want to promote mental health. Unfortunately, we are looking at a government bill that signals that we are going to take a wrong turn and fail vulnerable people who are suffering with their mental health. In a way, it is good to see Bill C-39 come forward, but it should also be clear that it is not good enough. At the very least, there will be a year before this new change takes effect, but that is nothing but a brief delay of the inevitable instead of reversing a terrible decision.
What is going to happen a year from now? Is the government going to bring another bill like this one forward to delay it another year? Will all the major problems raised by the provinces, professionals, advocacy groups and concerned citizens miraculously get resolved before the year is over? How is that even realistic? Does the government really expect Canadians to believe that?
The timeline is obviously ridiculous. It does not make sense practically and, more importantly, it will not take care of the issue at stake in the first place. There might be different views on assisted suicide for mental illness as the sole condition, but no one on either side of the debate can seriously say that it has been carefully considered in this country, if such a thing were possible. Instead, the whole process has been rushed and incomplete.
If the Liberals truly cared about making the right decision, the new legislation would be quite different. Even on their own terms, they will not be any more ready for the coming change next year than they would be if it was next month. It was only public pressure that made them slow down, but it is not going to stop them entirely. Clearly, they are planning to go ahead with the plan and hoping to get away with it again next spring.
It is highly irresponsible if we take a step back to consider the larger issue. First, I will look at this bill as it has been presented to us. We normally do not have to think too much about the official title of a bill as it comes through Parliament, but in the case of Bill C-39 it does matter, and it might even be fair to say that its name is somewhat misleading. It says that we are amending the Criminal Code related to the medical assistance in dying system, but that is only a technicality. In reality, this bill is not touching the substance of Bill C-7 as it was passed in the last Parliament. All it would do is delay the implementation of Bill C-7 or the aspect of the expansion for one year. That is definitely not a helpful or encouraging response to what Canadians and experts have been telling us since Bill C-7 became law, both inside and outside Parliament.
When Bill C-7 passed in 2021, 91% of Ontario psychiatrists opposed the expansion of euthanasia, but they were ignored. The government has not bothered to listen to critical advice and feedback. Make no mistake, there are ordinary citizens across the country who are horrified when they learn of what is happening here with expanding accessing to MAID for mental illness. I have heard from a lot of people in my own riding who are concerned. They came up to me at hockey rinks. They came up to me at my various town halls that I hosted over the winter break and told me how unimaginable it was for this is to happen in Canada.
There has been the same reaction around the world when people in other countries found out what has happened here in Canada. We stand out compared to other places that offer assisted suicide, and not in a good way. International media coverage shows how Canada's reputation has suffered as a result. It is long past time for the government to get outside of its bubble and hear what Canadians are thinking and feeling. Despite the Minister of Justice trying to claim that our system has strict safeguards, we need to look around and realize that something is not going right.
Canada reported 7,300 deaths in 2020 and 10,000 deaths in 2021. It is interesting that if we compare with another jurisdiction, it gets even more troubling. The state of California started to allow assisted suicide the same year that we did in 2016. The size of its total population is similar to that of Canada, yet it only reported 495 deaths in 2020 and 486 deaths in 2021. The difference in proportion is striking.
People see these numbers and they cannot believe that this government is considering expanding access even further to people with mental illness as a sole condition. They cannot help but wonder if these people are already slipping through the cracks and are caught up in the numbers we have here in Canada.
If we want to understand the background of how we found ourselves in the situation today with Bill C-39, we need to recall what happened with the previous bill. Back then, this Liberal government brought forward a piece of legislation that was a significant expansion from the way MAID was originally set up a few years before. It allowed assisted suicide for conditions where natural death was not reasonably foreseeable.
At the time, we heard overwhelmingly from many advocates, organizations and members from the disability community who were deeply concerned about the government's new direction. They pointed out the flaws and the risks involved for people with disabilities who could find themselves in a vulnerable position, and experience abuse rather than receiving the support and the resources they needed. They also worried about the stigma and the message it could send to the disabled as well as to wider society. It was clear that it would not be unacceptable for anyone, whether they live with a disability or not, to get the impression that these human lives are inferior or not worth living.
Here we are seemingly caught in a similar position once again. It was shocking when the Liberals accepted the last-minute amendment to include mental health as a condition for assisted suicide. Since then, they have had time and opportunity to reconsider, but they refuse to listen and protect the lives of vulnerable Canadians. If government members do not put a stop to the expansion of MAID for mental health, it will be impossible to take them seriously when they try to talk about a mental health crisis.
I want to take a moment to talk about Michael Landsberg, who spoke very passionately about mental health a number of years ago, and I consider this man to be a pioneer and a trailblazer.
Michael Landsberg was the host of Off the Record on TSN. Mr. Landsberg has a foundation called “#SickNotWeak”. A big part of what he talked about 20 years ago, and what he talks about today once again, is the stigma that people with mental illness quite often face and that people with depression face. When we look at the disability community and what we talked about earlier with the stigma around them, we are seeing that happen again for people with mental illness. I think it is important that we look at the stories of people like Michael Landsberg who has spoken so clearly and passionately around making sure that we do not provide harmful stigma for mental illness. When we look at the statistics that I quoted earlier, there is a real and present danger here if we do not address this properly while we have the opportunity.
Across the country there is a lack of mental health support, especially in rural ridings like mine. It is absolutely shameful to offer death as a solution. While Bill C-39 brings a pause in this expansion, it is inappropriate to use it as a selling tactic with the hope that public opinion will shift to their direction in the meantime.
However, a delay is not enough. We need to exclude mental health as an eligible condition for assisted suicide. This government must stop and review what it has done with the system. If not, it only shows that it is untrustworthy. There has been no sign of meaningful reflection about its previous legislation. Because of this, it has failed to reassure Canadians about further changes. We talked about the safeguards earlier; people are wondering if they even exist.
How can we ignore the veterans who are offered MAID instead of mental health support? How can we proceed when we have seen people in poverty and distress offered it against their will? These types of reports are coming far too often, and we cannot say that we had no warning. The predictions of experts and from many of us here on the official opposition have been proven to be correct so far. If this expansion happens in March 2024, how can anyone possibly pretend that these problems cannot get much worse?
Because the Liberals will not do what is necessary, one of my Conservative colleagues has taken the initiative to introduce a bill that will remove eligibility for mental illness. It would give us another chance to prevent this catastrophe, and I hope my colleagues support it.
1781 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I have witnessed over the years while we have been debating the issue of MAID, from 2016 and onward, is that there is no unanimous consent coming from the Conservative benches. There are many individuals even within the Conservative Party who have differing opinions in terms of what it is that the member himself is suggesting. If I am wrong on that I would be very much interested in the member telling me that I am wrong.
The reason I say that is because there was a special joint committee for MAID that has been out there doing a great deal of consulting, working with Canadians, looking to health experts and talking to individuals who are either direct or indirect stakeholders. There has been a great deal of discussion.
On the legislation itself, I suspect that the member is going to be voting in favour of it, but I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts in regards to the fact that even within his own political party there is no overwhelming sense that what he is suggesting is in fact the best way to be going.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there was a great phrase coined by our interim leader that “unity does not mean uniformity.” The reason that is important is because MAID is a deeply personal issue. We are not here to talk about the merits of MAID in and of itself. What we are here to talk about today is the expansion of mental illness as a sole reason for people to be eligible for medical assistance in dying.
If we look at the results Canadians are seeing, it is quite alarming and astonishing to see the government is willing to proceed with that as a reason for people to access this. Where we are united as a party, and I think where most Canadians, generally speaking, across this entire country are united when it comes to this issue is they want to see people have access to the supports they need for mental health.
I referenced Mr. Landsberg and how for over 20 years he has been advocating for the conversation around mental health and to try to eliminate the stigma that for so many years was assigned to people with mental illness. When we proceed with allowing mental illness to be a sole reason, it sends the wrong message. That is where Canadians want to see us go, which is to make sure we are sending the right messages and giving people hope as they go forward when they are going through their darkest hour.
244 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
