44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 13, 2023 11:00AM
- Feb/13/23 3:06:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in his state of the union address, President Joe Biden called out big oil for its excess profits, which he called “outrageous”, and he pledged to quadruple the tax on corporate stock buybacks. Frankly, that is not enough. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has called such profits “immoral”. In Canada, the 10 biggest oil and gas companies amassed more than $66 billion in profits in one year, and that is more than double what they had in the previous decade.
Can the hon. minister tell us when Canada will tax back the excess profits of these war profiteers?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/23 3:30:49 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the previous vote and will vote yes.
16 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/23 3:35:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are looking at the current situation of Canada's water laws and the threat to Canada's waterways. It is an astonishing reality that no bureau, department or sub-department in the Government of Canada has the word “water” in its title.
The petitioners call for the Government of Canada to update Canada's water laws to ensure that no industry or corporation takes precedence over the health of Canada's waterways and watersheds, and to ensure that Canada's water laws are updated under the guidance of professionals and specialists in the field of water conservation.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank our hon. colleague from Cariboo—Prince George from the bottom of my heart for the work he has done in this place for people who are suffering from mental illness and who are feeling suicidal ideation, and on the need for the ability to get that 988 number. I know how heartfelt his engagement is on this.
I will also be voting to see Bill C-39 through, but I probably differ from my colleague on the question of at what point do we say there has to be, with proper protocols and rules, access for people to medical assistance in dying. Is the member open to considering at some point, if there were a medical consensus on this, that we should proceed to extend to mental health issues as well?
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, given the circumstances that, if we do not pass this bill, the provisions that were included in Bill C-7 will automatically come into force, I assume the member will be voting for Bill C-39.
What steps would he and his party want to see taken before March 2024 to ensure that adequate mental health supports are provided to all Canadians?
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon member for Timmins—James Bay for such a heartfelt and sincere exploration of how it has made all of us feel in this place. I remember feeling entirely conflicted on the vote on Bill C-7, because I could not see how we could deny advance directives for people who had a terminal diagnosis and were told they had to wait for the day of their MAID procedure, and be of sound mind and confirm.
We knew that people were actually choosing MAID procedures earlier than they needed to because of the failure to have advance directives in Bill, C-14. I know, as I did vote for Bill C-7, that I was approving something to come into place automatically by default that I thought was wrong, so I thank the hon. member.
Has the member ever explored the ideas of things like psilocybin? There are mental health illnesses where the psychiatry profession says there is no hope for a person, they are chronically depressed and nothing will ever lift them out of it. Does the hon member for Timmins—James Bay have any thoughts about what other medical procedures could assist in lifting people out of the deepest of despairs?
212 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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, 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, 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, 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 want to say a huge thanks to my colleague and dear friend from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his speech. I totally agree with him.
Perhaps he would agree with me that in the debates on Bill C-14, the government promised to do more for palliative care, if I remember correctly. That was a few years ago. I think those promises have been broken.
I would like to hear what my colleague thinks.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, certainly as the debate has continued through this evening, I think there is a remarkable amount of non-partisan agreement, with areas of difference. I think one of the areas of difference, and I am hoping the hon. member for Foothills will agree, is that it is better not to try to suggest that people have a motivation in this place.
We all agree, I think, that the pace at which MAID extended from irremediable medical conditions to mental health conditions took a lot of us by surprise. I voted for Bill C-7 because I wanted to see the advance directives being made available to people who were suffering with a terminal medical illness. The mental health conditions were suddenly before us.
We welcome the chance to have an additional year's delay, but what could we do in that time? I ask the hon. member for Foothills what he would recommend in this next year to make a difference and have the precautions and protocols in place.
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, would my hon. friend from Calgary Nose Hill support one of the things that many of us in opposition are calling for, which is a guaranteed livable income, so that no one would be in such a desperate state that they would actually think of taking their own life because of economic pressures.
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Dufferin—Caledon for being extremely open and honest about his own experience of deep pain and darkness. I also want to keep everything with respect to this issue as non-partisan as possible.
We have a year. Bill C-39 is going to pass. I have not heard any souls in this place say they are not going to vote for it. What do we do in the coming year? What would the hon. member recommend?
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
