44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 15, 2023 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I thank all parties for coming together to get this done. It really has been an experience to bring forward a piece of legislation and have every member of the House support it.
I bet, before I brought forward this bill, Bill C-224, that most of us did not know there was a link between firefighting and cancer. We now have 338 members of Parliament, representing every Canadian, who now know this and can help spread the word to increase awareness.
I want to thank a few people who worked with me behind the scenes on this: Catherine from my office, Trevor and Jean-Luc. A lot of times, when it comes to the work that gets done behind the scenes, they do not get the credit. I want to thank them for everything they did to help me get this across the finish line.
In closing, I have a message for the firefighter in Longueuil who inspired this bill and who celebrated his 50th birthday over the weekend. Happy birthday, Jean‑François. We are almost there.
This bill would save lives. We owe it to firefighters, and I know how proud they will be when this bill becomes law.
206 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/23 6:54:08 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/23 6:55:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad to be joining this debate at this late hour. I understand this is an issue that is very close to many people's hearts, and a lot of members wanted to rise. I wanted to make sure I caught your eye on this one.
“The Lord rewards a good deed but maybe not right away.” That is a Yiddish proverb I have often heard. I have heard it in Polish. I love Yiddish proverbs, as many members know. Growing up in my family, my grandmother used to say them. She said them in Polish. It turns out that nearly all of them are Yiddish in their origin. That was something humorous I would talk to her about.
In this case, some members of the public think we have actually voted through things that we have not voted through. All we are doing here, directly in the summary of this legislation, is delaying making a final decision until March 17, 2024, on the repeal of the exclusion from eligibility for receiving medical assistance in dying in circumstances where the sole, the only, underlying medical condition identified in support of the request for medical assistance in dying is a mental illness.
I am prepared to speak on this piece of legislation as I have done in past Parliaments. I have been here since the 42nd Parliament, so I have been through the debate on Bill C-7, and the debate on Bill C-14.
Bill C-7 was originally the response to the Carter decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada. In it, the Supreme Court found that there was a constitutional right to seek an assisted suicide from a medical professional. It is an exemption to a part of the Criminal Code, but do not ask me to quote which section of the Criminal Code. I have, fortunately, not been burdened with a legal education, so I come at this with a layperson's eyes.
It provided an exemption. Sometimes, when I have a back-and-forth with constituents back home, I raise that point. It is an exclusion to that particular section of the Criminal Code. Then, it becomes incumbent on the federal government to put in place some measures to protect the vulnerable in society.
There were a few people who emailed me over the last few months to talk about that vulnerability, people from different sectors of our society, and how they would be affected. This is not a unanimity in my riding, but the vast majority of the people who contacted me are opposed to the extension of medical assistance in dying, or assisted suicide, for people with a mental illness, when it is the sole condition that they have. They have been very clear on this. Some of the emails are quite emotional. Some of them are a dissertation of what has happened to their family, essentially, and they give particular cases.
I want to do them justice by reading some of their thoughts without using their full names, just to protect their anonymity in the emails. I was also here for the debate on Bill C-14. I remember this debate quite vividly, because Bill C-14 came after the Truchon decision. In that decision, the court found that there was a wording we had used, irremediable or unforeseeable deaths. I remember debating in a previous Parliament and saying this would likely be struck down by the court. It was such a broad term that it could mean anything. It went beyond what the Carter decision said. It was struck down by a court. Let that be said to my friends who are lawyers. I am occasionally right on the law and about what the courts would do. They did strike it down in Bill C-14.
Now we are going back again. I understand that, today, the special committee on medical assistance in dying, which was struck by the House, finished its review and tabled the report. I have not yet had the time to completely review that report. To the constituents in my riding who have emailed me over the last few months as this issue has gained more traction, I want to read a part from Allison.
Allison wrote to me, “A family member with complex health conditions said she was asked so many times about it,...” it being medical assistance in dying, “...she wondered if her Dr. would get a commission for the procedure!! Where are the safeguards and regulations? Who protects vulnerable patients from being coerced by subtle suggestions?”
She goes on, “To be human is to experience pain, suffering and vulnerability. In my family, we have had people that have struggled with mental illness and recovered to live productive, healthy lives, thanks to support from family and community.” She is saying, “let us help you live better” should be the message we send people who are suffering from a mental health condition or a mental illness of some sort. I have known people in my life, around me, who have gone through that as well.
Lisa in my riding emailed me in December and said, “As a citizen who is deeply invested in the going ons with MAID and disability services in this country I keep current in what is happening and research.” She started off by saying that she is the mother of a child with a disability. Her son has no siblings and no close family to look out for him and advocate for him. She mentioned that once she and her husband are no longer alive, she is worried what type of country will be left behind for her son.
She uses some pretty harsh language, but it is parliamentary; I checked. She went on to say, “The way in which Canada has expanded MAID is nothing short of predatory, opportunistic and ableist.” Those are the words she uses. She asked some questions, and I do not have easy answers for her, but I will ask them openly here: “Why are they not being offered better mental health and physical health supports? Why is the government expanding MAID without first expanding holistic supports to our disabled people?”
She then says, “As a mother of a vulnerable child who one day will be left alone who may be exceptionally impressionable and dependant on our broken system I am deeply concerned about the expansion of MAID and its possible implications.” She implores us, “Do better Canada!” That was from Lisa in my riding.
Bev in my riding is very concerned about MAID being expanded to adolescents. I know that debate is going on concurrently. It is not directly in Bill C-39, because we are just talking about delaying for a year the approval of mental illnesses and mental health issues as the sole underlying conditions for applying for medical assistance in dying. However, in her email to me, she noted how vehemently opposed she is to MAID being expanded to adolescents or children and to making this expansion permanent in the law. She went on a bit, but some of it is not entirely parliamentary, so I will avoid violating the rules of the House.
Joe in my riding mentions the following: “We have already had someone in the Department of Veterans Affairs advocating Maid for those with PTSD. What terrible advice to give our veterans. Please do not proceed with eliminating those whose only problem is that they are mentally ill.” I have talked to Joe many times. He is what I would call one of my regulars, as he emails me quite often. He is very passionate about public education, I will add.
Cindy in my riding said, “At no point does a healthy family or community decide that one of its dearly beloved members is better dead than alive. The veneer of compassion is easily seen through.” She went on to make a point that really struck me:
It is indeed a slippery slope to offer MAID to the mentally ill, depressed, bipolar, and any other non-detectable illness—especially when removing the requirement that death be considered reasonably soon.
By expanding MAID in this way, the floodgates are opened for Canadians to easily choose despair over meaning in their lives.
This is the wrong direction for Canada, and an embarrassment on the international stage.
The last one I will read is from Shirley, which is very simple. She said, “Has the world gone mad?” She talks about expanding MAID to those who have a mental illness, expanding it to young people, and on and on.
Those are the types of emails I have been receiving, on top of phone calls, and those are the worries I wanted to express on the floor of the House.
Some are suffering and going through difficult times, and some are diagnosed with really serious chronic conditions that are essentially terminal, conditions like Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig's disease. The original foundational decision that Carter was gripped with was what to do about ALS, an awful condition. It is degenerative, chronic and pretty much incurable. There are many therapies out there to delay the condition. There was a member in the 42nd Parliament, an honorary chair occupant for a day, Mauril Bélanger, who passed away from it. Since then, I have met others whose family members have passed away. What I think the judges and the court were trying get at is that these are the people we should be looking after.
I want to lay this before the House. When a doctor gives up on someone, they are much more likely to give up on themselves. I have seen this time and time again. I have also experienced it myself when my disabled daughter was so sick that the four doctors in the room termed the condition “not conducive to life”. There is nothing like being told this by physicians who are supposed to look after a child, and seeing, essentially, the gentle and subtle push that my constituents talked about, which is repeated over and over. There is also the consumption of resources. That will lead to more people using the system when they have other options. Resisting the urge to just give up is difficult to do at the best of times, and people need community and family support all around them.
1765 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I note there are a number of inconsistencies in what my colleague is saying about MAID for people with a mental health issue as the sole underlying condition. The expert panel reported on MAID and has made a number of recommendations. I know the extension we are seeking today is about ensuring that all of our systems can be in place, so I am wondering if my friend could reflect on what the expert panel has said in clearly outlining what is required and the safeguards in place for MAID to be extended to those with a mental health issue as the sole underlying condition.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, the ones I have noted on the record and the many others I have spoken to, I will say that they are not so much interested in what the expert panel had to say. They simply do not want the extension to happen, and I do not mean a delay. If the government is looking for a pat on the back and a reward for a good deed, as the Yiddish proverb goes, it is not going to happen right away.
For my constituents, I think the starting point is that there is a lack of trust, because they read stories of people who have accessed MAID and who had a condition that did not fit the description given in law. Because there are different provinces applying it in different ways and physicians have applied it in a fairly subjective way, there is a very low level of trust from constituents in my riding.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is one issue that has been raised many times in the House, and that is the issue of mental health. To date, the government has refused to make the investments needed to help people and to ensure that all Canadians who need mental health care receive it. This is not happening right now because of the lack of funding and resources.
I want to know what my colleague thinks of the government's mental health funding. Is it not important to make investments so that people will always have options when it comes to mental health?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it could get interesting with two members from western Canada debating in French in the House on the topic of mental health.
I think that program funding and increased government services are not the only things that matter when it comes to mental health. There is the role of the family and the community. It is about having a career, a profession and a reason to live. There is faith, which is very important for many people.
Of course, it would be good for the government to provide more services to people having mental health issues or difficulties and who are asking for help. The provinces are responsible for providing the services. I know that my province of Alberta is working hard to ensure that people have a choice and access to services, but more can be done in the communities to provide services in rural regions and big cities. That said, I want to reiterate the importance of family, friends, work and faith, all of which must also play a role.
174 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.
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, the beginning of his comments sounded almost like an S. O. 31, and I encourage the member to try to catch the Speaker's eye the next time he rises.
He is absolutely right. From what I can tell, at no time in the decisions of Truchon or Carter, and I have read both, did the government say there was a right to die in Canada because of an underlying mental illness as the only condition.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want my constituents to know that I am staying in the riding to take care of my newborn, but I am happy to participate, in hybrid fashion, on their behalf on this very important subject.
Bill C-39, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding medical assistance in dying, seeks to delay the expansion of medically assisted death to individuals whose sole condition is a mental illness. We are here today because of previous legislation in the last Parliament, Bill C-7, that responded to the Truchon decision and the justice minister's interpretation of it by removing critical safeguards to accessing MAID, particularly that death must be reasonably foreseeable. However, Bill C-7 contained an arbitrary deadline of March 17, 2023, to expand MAID to those whose sole condition is a mental illness, and now the government is seeking to delay that arbitrary deadline another year down the road.
As I do not want MAID to be offered to those who are solely suffering from a mental health issue, I will be supporting the bill, but I do so in the context of very big and life-altering concerns regarding the direction the Government of Canada has taken since the debate on MAID commenced in 2016.
The Conservatives believe that we should never give up on those experiencing mental illness and should always be focused on offering help and treatment rather than assisted death. The Conservatives will bring forward alternative proposals to support those with mental illness instead of the government's approach.
Going back to 2016, the preamble of Bill C-14 spoke about the vulnerability of persons. It states:
Whereas vulnerable persons must be protected from being induced, in moments of weakness, to end their lives
It also states:
Whereas suicide is a significant public health issue that can have lasting and harmful effects on individuals, families and communities
Man, have we seen a lot of change in the last seven years.
Conservative members at the time, despite these assurances in Bill C-14, observed that the approach of the government was going down a slippery slope. The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman highlighted a concern that has sadly now become a reality in Canada. He stated, “many believe that the policy will be used prematurely to end the lives of those who have become a burden to their families, society, or the medical system.”
At the time, because of big public concerns, many Liberal members were careful when it came to speaking about expanding MAID in the future. The former justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, said, “In terms of eligibility, the policy choice made by the government was to focus on persons who are in an advanced state of irreversible decline and whose natural deaths have become reasonably foreseeable.” The current member for Lac-Saint-Louis said, “Bill C-14 would not normalize medically assisted dying as perhaps has occurred in Belgium and the Netherlands, the two most often cited examples of the slippery slope.”
In the last Parliament, in his charter considerations on Bill C-7, which expanded MAID to include those without a reasonably foreseeable death, the current Minister of Justice cited inherent risks and complexity as a reason not to expand MAID to those with mental illness as a sole condition. However, the Minister of Justice, unfortunately, as we find today, is speaking on both sides of this issue very irresponsibly. On the one hand, he communicated in the Bill C-7 charter consideration that due to the complexity and inherent risks, we should not be expanding MAID to those with mental illness as a sole condition. On the other hand, in the same bill, he included a sunset clause to expand MAID to these Canadians and said that his hands were tied by a Quebec court decision. However, not only has the government refused to challenge it at the Supreme Court, but leading legal experts in our country have stated that his interpretation of the decision is flawed.
After telling Canadians time and again that the legalization of MAID would not lead to a slippery slope by allowing death on demand for any citizen whenever they may want it, the government seems set on expanding MAID to anyone.
I plead with the backbench members of the Liberal Party to stand up against the justice minister today. You have more influence than any Canadians right now to stop what he is trying to do.
Do not forget that in 2016, on Bill C-14, he voted against the—
768 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/23 7:16:28 p.m.
- Watch
We have a point of order from the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I can certainly appreciate the passion in the member's speech, but he did just start talking directly to Liberal members. He said, “You have...”, and I am certain he was not talking about you. Perhaps he would like to rephrase that.
46 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/23 7:16:49 p.m.
- Watch
I appreciate the hon. member noticing that.
Yes, the hon. member has to speak through the Chair. That is just a reminder.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Through you, Madam Speaker, I implore the Liberal members of Parliament to stand up against their justice minister and the irresponsible decisions he is taking.
Across Canada every year we celebrate Bell Let's Talk. Mental health services have expanded in hospitals, schools and universities because there is an inherent belief by all Canadians that mental health challenges are things we can overcome. Every family in this country is impacted by mental health, and it pains me to see my country considering offering death to those suffering at their lowest points. We do not need to do this.
Again, through you, Madam Speaker, I implore Liberal members to challenge the justice minister on his overly broad interpretation of the Truchon decision, a ruling of the Quebec court, and to stop what he wants to do.
A recent article in The Globe and Mail talked about Donna Duncan, a 63-year-old woman from my community. Her daughter successfully delayed, through the court, her mother's access to MAID because her mother suffered from a mental illness. However, just hours after leaving the hospital, Donna received a medically assisted death without her daughters being informed, even though their mother already suffered from a mental health condition that was documented.
Both daughters, Alicia and Christie, testified at the medical assistance in dying committee and they made a number of recommendations.
The first, which seems so sensible, is “mandatory access to health care”.
The second is an increase in the required number of independent witnesses to be formally interviewed as part of the assessment, to at least three.
The third is “...a pre-death assessment review. Doctors should be required to submit all assessments to an independent review board prior to a patient's death.”
The fourth is “continuity of care. Multiple assessments should be completed by the same medical professional.”
The fifth is “mandatory wait periods”.
The sixth is “...mandatory release of records. Hospitals and health authorities should be required to release unredacted copies of their MAID assessment records to those who are entitled to them.”
I would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that, when Bill C-39 was tabled in Parliament, the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada called for this delay at the beginning of December. I will note as well that University of Toronto law professor Trudo Lemmens and numerous colleagues from across Canada challenged the Minister of Justice on his actions today.
Again, my plea today is to the Liberal caucus, through you, Madam Speaker, to challenge the decision of the justice minister, not to irresponsibly expand MAID in one year's time for those suffering from mental health. Canadians know that mental health can be overcome. Canadians know that this does not have to be the solution. Canadians know that they want to take care of people when they need to be taken care of.
493 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first, I sincerely appreciate the incredible passion the member has demonstrated in his speech. I congratulate him for relaying that in such a passionate manner to the House. Second, I certainly take great opportunity to reflect on this legislation and the issue before us, so I do not want the member to think there are not members of the Liberal bench who are always highly concerned over the manner in which this medical procedure would be used.
Finally, I am unsure exactly what the member is asking when he makes a plea to Liberal backbenchers, in his terms. The whole point of this extension is to make sure that everything that would be put in place would be done in a responsible and appropriate manner.
By the member's own admission, he is voting in favour of this extension. Therefore, what is it, exactly, that the member is asking? Is he asking for something that is supposed to happen a year from now?
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to clarify a key point, which is that I do not believe that mental health sickness should be a reason for someone to receive MAID in Canada. The legislation before us today would delay the ability of medical professionals to offer MAID on the basis of mental health sicknesses. I do not want to see my country ever reach that point. Therefore, in the year ahead, I implore the Liberal members of Parliament to challenge their justice minister, because I know, and they know, that the large majority of Canadians are against this.
In fact, I did a survey in my community. While my community was equally divided on MAID in general, there was unanimity among all of my constituents that, at a minimum, proper medical supports and mental health supports should be offered to all people irrespective of their medical conditions, and especially for those considering the use of MAID.
160 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, my colleague is from Canada's number two riding, after my riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. I will note that, under the proposed redistribution boundaries, he is going to take part of Canada's number one riding, which I am very sad to see.
However, to the member's point, my constituents believe that we, as a country as rich and prosperous as Canada is, should be offering the medical treatment to allow people to make informed decisions about their lives, especially when they are most vulnerable. Right now, we are not there. I could [Technical difficulty—Editor] for example in my community, that a woman decided to receive MAID because she felt she was a burden on society, in Abbotsford, and did not have access to adequate housing. Where are we as a country and a society when we are permitting the death of an—
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
