44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 15, 2023 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
Prior to asking my learned colleague a question, I want to reflect on the life of a constituent who passed away over the holiday break. That was Paul Da Silva. I am very sorry for his family's loss, and I wish his wife and children all the best in this difficult time. May eternal light shine upon him.
My question to my learned colleague is this. We just heard from the parliamentary secretary about an expert panel. Typically, in law, when we talk about expert panels, they generally come down to what the court says. In this case, I am not sure if my colleague is aware, but I would like him to comment on how no court, from what I can see, has unequivocally stated that there is a right to medical assistance in dying for people who are mentally ill. I would like his comment on that.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I will admit that my hon. colleague kind of stole my thunder, because I was going to ask a bit about what his constituents were saying.
However, I am wondering if there were any responses that particularly stood out. As I understood his last comment, he said that it was about fifty-fifty on the issue of medical assistance in dying, generally. However, it sounds like there was near unanimity from his constituents, and obviously on a moral issue he has to bear that in mind. I wonder if the member wants to take 30 to 45 seconds of this important time in the House on this very important topic to elaborate on that.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, especially when we are talking about something that is really quite critical and that is quite important to a number of people in the House.
This is an issue that really tugs at the heartstrings of a number of Canadians. My hope, and what I have seen so far, is that we can have a rational debate on this issue. What we are debating in this bill is the one-year postponement, putting it in my words, of the provision of medical assistance in dying to people who are suffering solely from mental illness. It is also intertwined with the greater question of what we, as Canadians, should be doing. If there is no other place that we should be debating this, it is right here.
I want to reflect a little bit on how we got here and also where I anticipated we might go, based both on what materials have been provided to the Minister of Justice and what the government has put out through its charter statement.
It was not that long ago that I was in high school. Maybe it was a while back, 1993, if I recall.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I thank the hon. member for being honest.
Mr. Frank Caputo: Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands commended me for my honesty. I appreciate that. I like to think I am always honest in this place.
In 1993, if memory serves, we had the Rodriguez case. I am probably simplifying this, but that was a question on the right to die. It was a five-four split, but the Supreme Court of Canada said that there was no charter basis for that decision. It has been a while since I reviewed that in depth, but that is my recollection.
We fast-forward 22 years to the Carter decision in 2015, which came to the opposite conclusion. That case, I believe, was a per curiam decision for the court, which means that all nine justices found that the prohibition did offend the charter. The question that often comes to the House after that occurs is how Parliament should respond. I was not here then. I got here in 2021. Being here has been 18 of the best months of my life.
I can say that, from 2015 to 2023, we have seen a dramatic shift in what seemed to be envisioned both in the legal community and in the Canadian community at large, that change from medical assistance in dying for people who had irremediability, a terminal condition or a condition that was not going to get better, with death being foreseeable. My understanding when I was growing up, and it was an issue when I was in high school and university, was that this was really at the crux of the issue. Should somebody who is terminally ill have a right to euthanasia? That is how we framed it.
I am going to go to the minister's charter statement, dated October 21, 2020. I am going to note that I am not sure whether or not a charter statement has been provided for Bill C-39. I was with the minister at committee yesterday and no charter statement had been provided, so here we are debating a bill on a very serious issue, and we do not have a charter statement.
I am looking at everybody on the government benches. There are a couple of people here on the opposition benches as well. I hope we can all agree that not having a charter statement, which is supposed to accompany legislation like this, is a problem. What is adding to that problem is that, when the minister was asked about that by one of my colleagues yesterday, there was no definitive answer. He was asked where the charter statement is and when it is coming.
We are being asked to decide on this issue inside of what I would call a legal vacuum, where we do not even know what department officials think about this proposed legislation. I would hope, and I would think, that all of my colleagues believe that to be a problem.
The charter statement on Bill C-7 was tabled on October 21, 2020. This was before the legislation was amended by the Senate. On page 7 of 18, the charter statement says, “While expanding eligibility for MAID to include people whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, the Bill would exclude individuals whose sole medical condition is a mental illness.” On the next page it continues, “In particular, the exclusion would apply only to mental illness”.
Further on, it says:
The exclusion is not based on the assumption that individuals who suffer from mental illness lack decision-making capacity and would not disqualify such individuals from eligibility...if they otherwise meet the requirements, for example, if they have another medical condition that is considered to be a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability. Nor is the exclusion based on a failure to appreciate the severity of the suffering that mental illness can produce.
This is the key part:
Rather, it is based on the inherent risks and complexity that the availability of MAID would present for individuals who suffer solely from mental illness. First, evidence suggests that screening for decision-making capacity is particularly difficult, and subject to a high degree of error.... Second, mental illness is generally less predictable than physical illness in terms of the course the illness will take over time.
These are static points, and by that I mean these things will not change with time. It is not like in 2020 there were inherent risks and complexity of judging MAID for people who suffer from mental illness, but now it has changed. We asked the minister about this, as I recall, yesterday. In any event, the minister has not articulated, and the government has not articulated, what changed. Either the charter statement was wrong, or something changed.
Neither has been put forward before the House. How is that possible? Was the charter statement wrong, or have the inherent risks and complexity changed? Has the predictability of mental illness over the course of time changed, or was the charter statement wrong? These are questions that, in my view, the minister has to answer.
One of the more difficult things we discussed yesterday at committee with the minister happened when one of my hon. colleagues asked him about a letter that was written by 32 academics. These are not insignificant people. I know some of these 32 law professors. The minister was asked flat out by the member for Fundy Royal if the professors were right, or if the minister was right. The minister said he was right.
I am going to list a few of these 32 professors, because the hon. minister has said that they are wrong. There is Archibald Kaiser, professor of law in the department of psychiatry at Dalhousie; Tess Sheldon, from the faculty of law at the University of Windsor; Elizabeth Sheehy; Brandon Trask; Brian Bird, a friend of mine who clerked at the Supreme Court of Canada and did his thesis on conscience rights for a Ph.D. in law; Janine Benedet, who I have heard speak to issues that relate to sexual assault; and one of my very good friends, Dr. Ruby Dhand. I am going to give her a few props here. She had five degrees by her 34th birthday. Professor Dhand is one of the smartest and most brilliant people I know.
The minister told us yesterday that he is right and these people are wrong. They wrote a letter saying that what the government is saying is the case with MAID, that it is rooted in Canadian law, is just simply not accurate. That is what they said. Who is wrong: them or him?
1336 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will address the member saying that this was resolved two years ago. Two years ago would have made it February 15, the day after Valentine's Day, 2021. This charter statement was tabled in the House October 21, 2020. Was this issue resolved mere months after this charter statement? I get it. Reasonable people can disagree sometimes, and we talk about expert panels.
I will say this much. This letter to the minister, led by Trudo Lemmens, was tabled February 2, 2023. These are serious concerns. When there are serious concerns about an issue this significant, we should not be saying we are pressing on in one year. We should be giving this more thought.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's intervention. I have been here 18 months, and it has been a pleasure to get to know him over that time.
My hon. colleague may not know this, but my wife, as a clinical lawyer, helps the most down-and-out people. She is somebody I consider an expert in this field, helping out people and giving them legal advice for the greatest issues. They are often the most poor, and one of the things she relates to me is that one of the contributors is actually trauma. That is one of the greatest issues when it comes to mental health as well. It is trauma.
I am not going to discount poverty. We, as Conservatives, talk about poverty every day in this place when we talk about the impact of inflation on poverty. If we really want to talk about this, we should talk about the government not legislating mandatory minimums for sexual offences. That is where trauma comes from. I hope, when we do speak about these things, that my colleague joins me. I look forward to chatting more about extinguishing poverty with him.
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we do not have a charter statement and we should. It is my understanding that, even when a bill is revised, there should be a charter statement. With Bill C-7, we had an initial charter statement. It came back from the Senate, and there is no new charter statement. The charter statement we are left with is pre-amendment. That is a problem, and if we couple that with the lack of a charter statement in the House, we are left with a huge problem.
In my view, the law is to be followed and there should be a charter statement. We should be following that. I wish we had it. We should have it.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
