44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 13, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I do not believe it is appropriate for any member of the House to try to imply, in any way or any form, that there is any member of the House of Commons who would actually suggest that it is okay for a veterans service agent to recommend MAID to a veteran.
Would the hon. member not agree with that assertion?
63 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would agree that it is inappropriate for a case worker from Veterans Affairs to offer a veteran access to medical assistance in dying rather than the mental health resources that they need. However, Veterans Affairs, under the current government, did exactly that. For that member to just try to say that this never happened is a complete fallacy. It did not happen just once; it happened numerous times.
It is absolutely inappropriate but, unfortunately, the government did exactly that.
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think my hon. colleague touched on the crux of the issue. That review should have occurred. We would have had better insight into what we are dealing with right now.
The issue he is talking about, that balance, is when someone is suffering with mental illness or a disability and how difficult it is to understand if they are making that decision in the right state of mind, let us say. The Liberal government opened this door so wide, when there is no question that Canadians, at their most vulnerable moment, will be making an irreconcilable decision that they may not be making in the best position of their mental health and, certainly, the position they are in economically and financially. Most importantly, are they in the right state of mind to make such an important decision?
That is what we have to take the time to decide.
151 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, we are here tonight, at nearly 10 o'clock in Ottawa, discussing a difficult topic, but one that every Canadian should be concerned about. I would like to outline what we are talking about tonight so I can give my argument in that context.
In 2020, a bill was tabled to discuss and put forward proposals to expand medically assisted dying, and then in the other place, the Senate, there was an amendment made after committee study, and after due diligence, which the government rammed through. Without scrutiny, the government rammed through an amendment that was put forward by an unelected and unaccountable body to expand medically assisted dying to persons with mental health issues.
That bill ended up passing, and now we are here today debating an initiative that the government now wants to undertake to extend the date that service would become available to Canadians from this year and month, to a year from now.
I want to be very clear. I am going to vote in favour of extending this timeline, but under no circumstances in this country right now should medically assisted dying be extended to persons with mental health issues. For colleagues who are in the Liberal caucus who have the ability to speak to their leaders behind closed doors, our country is suffering. There are so many people who are hurting who may have had some mental health issues before the pandemic due to job loss, lack of access to services, issues that happened in relationships or so many things.
We are a country that is in the middle of a mental health crisis, yet today the most amount of time we have spent debating how we, as Parliament, and the government are going to support Canadians with mental health issues is to offer medically assisted dying. I just find it reprehensible and an abdication of responsibility of every person in here of every political stripe to allow medically assisted dying to be extended to Canadians, given the abject and miserable state of mental health supports for Canadians across this country.
Nobody can access mental health services in this country. Even privileged people have difficult times accessing mental health supports. Everybody in this country will need somebody to talk to or will go through crises, and every once in a while we get something from a corporation, such as Bell Let's Talk day, but when the rubber hits the road and somebody needs someone to talk to, those services are not adequately there, or they are too expensive. For the government to even contemplate allowing this for such people, where one of the symptoms of mental health issues is to express, in certain circumstances, wishes to die, is so irresponsible. My opinion is that we should not only delay this from coming into force for a year, but also not do it at all.
The government promised $4.5 billion for mental health services, and that is nowhere to be found. The NDP is in a supply coalition with the government. This should be number one on its list of demands. There should be no support of medically assisted dying without some sort of plan to address the lack of staff in mental health support services, the burnout in mental health services and the lack of funding. In my province of Alberta, the amount of funding the government just offered the Province of Alberta, $500 million, in this last round of talks was about the same it spent on airport COVID testing after it had lifted restrictions for airport COVID tests.
The government has its priorities all wrong. This is not just about spending or waste. This is people's lives. It is suggesting that we should be extending medically assisted dying at a time when we have not even begun talking about destigmatizing mental health issues. There are a lot of people who would never talk about it. They feel like it is a shame to struggle. They do not have someone to talk to or have a support network. As parliamentarians, we are contemplating normalizing offering medically assisted dying. How did we get to this point? How did the government even think this was appropriate? It even snuck it in on a Senate amendment. No. We should be pushing this deadline off.
My colleague from British Columbia tabled a bill to remove this provision and I support his legislation 100%. It is smart, it is compassionate and it should receive cross-party support. There is nobody in here who can argue, with a straight face, that the mental health support services for Canadians are anywhere close to adequate at all. It is our duty, as parliamentarians, to give people hope to live. That is our first goal.
That is what we should be doing, not sitting in some academic chamber listening to people argue legal technicalities around maybe something means medically assisted dying. We have to have a moral compass sometimes in this place. There is no way this should proceed in Canada. Even my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands talked about the explosive use of MAID and the slippery slope that actually happened. It was not a logical fallacy in debate. We have evidence of it. There are no safeguards and there are no supports to help Canadians make the choice to live.
I am begging everybody in this place, first and foremost, help Canadians live. We need to help Canadians live by pushing this off and by supporting my colleague from B.C.'s bill. We should not even need this private member's bill. We should not be wasting time in the House of Commons pushing this decision off for a year. We should not even be talking about it at all. We should be debating late in the night about how we give Canadians the support they need.
In a CBC article from February 2, the justice minister was quoted talking about why he wanted to extend it for a year. It was not for any of the reasons that I gave or colleagues of other political stripes have talked about. He said, “We want, in particular, those health practitioners, those faculties of medicine, colleges who had some concerns to have the time to internalize what is happening.”
His concern and motive for delaying this was not to protect Canadians. It was to foist this ideology upon our top medical practitioners at a time when they are burnt out, suffering and underfunded after two years of a pandemic and a woefully broken health care system. There is no way we should be extending medically assisted dying to mental health in Canada given how broken our health care system is and the lack of hope Canadians have right now. It is our job to be offering them hope and to be doing everything possible for Canadians who have mental health issues to have that hope.
For anybody who is listening to this tonight, there are so many lines out there. If someone is struggling with mental health issues, they can reach out and know that there are people in this place who understand that everyone has a right to live. They have a right to live with dignity, with hope and with compassion, and that is what we are fighting for. That is why there are people of differing ideologies in this place who will fight tooth and nail to get the government to focus on what is good, just and beautiful.
1259 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would concur that there are many ways in which people can access the types of supports that are out there, and it would be good to see more support going into mental illness, health and well-being. We hope that is what we will seeing with our provincial and territorial governments, and work with our different communities, rural or urban. The issue I have is when we take a look at the legislation, the legislation is proposing a pause. There will be some time for members to continue to reflect on and hear what health care professionals and experts have to say.
To what degree should health care experts and other stakeholders play a role in this debate?
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg just said that he would hope that we would have more resources for mental health. He is part of the government. He has a government appointment. He sits around the table.
We do not have those supports because the government has not provided them to Canadians. Honestly, he is listening, and he should think about this. This is not a talking point. His government has not got the job done, and that is why we are here. This should not be a pause. We should not be talking about this. This should not happen.
When it comes to his question about medical professionals, we have medical professionals. We have got all sorts of groups from disability experts to indigenous leaders saying there is no way this should be offered in Canada. What we should be focusing on is helping people to live with hope and dignity, something that the government has not yet done. That is why the government should not be proposing this at all. Based on science, based on morality and based on any outcome right now, we should not be offering medically assisted dying to Canadians with mental health issues.
199 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, earlier the member from Winnipeg talked about how we all agree that it was wrong that a staffer at Veterans Affairs Canada was talking about euthanasia with a veteran who called looking for help. He asked if we do not all agree on that.
I think what confuses me about the government's position is that apparently it objects to the fact that over and over again, when a veteran called in for help at Veterans Affairs Canada, they were told to consider euthanasia or medical assistance in dying, yet if that same veteran had gone to see a psychiatrist or visited a nurse practitioner, the government would be totally fine with that person being given that advice. The government is fine with people being told by the medical system that they should consider or pursue this option, just apparently not when it comes from Veterans Affairs.
Does the member think there is an inconsistency in the government's position that we should be supporting people in all cases, regardless?
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that cuts a little close to home for me. My husband is a combat veteran. I know what it is like when he casually tells me that one of his colleagues that he served with has taken their own life.
This is not a joke. We should not be offering medically assisted dying as the first intervention of Parliament, which is what the government would be doing, instead of telling Canadians they are worthy, they have value and our government is here to help them with their needs, be it a veteran, be it somebody who has lost their job or somebody going through divorce. We should be offering hope, value and dignity, not medically assisted dying for people with mental health issues.
125 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
Madam Speaker, the government has spent us into oblivion. Our government has put us into a situation where we are broke. Talking about all the things that could help Canadians is so much farther away because of the waste, the corruption and the lack of priorities on Canadians.
There are so many things we could be talking about and should be talking about to help Canadians, but the first thing we need to do is get the government out of the way. I cannot even believe that this proposal is on the floor.
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place to talk about this important issue facing Canadians, being signalled last week and coming into debate today, and to understand the gravity of the conversation that is Bill C-39. We have before us a bill that presses pause, a one-year pause, on the implementation of the state being able to, through a medical assistance in dying regime, see individuals take their own life for the sole underlying cause of having a mental illness. It is moments like this where one has no option but to pause and think about the gravity of the issues that we discuss here.
Certainly, when it comes to this delay, I support it. I think that a year is not nearly long enough, and like many other colleagues, I believe that a delay simply does not go far enough regarding something that should never be on the table.
When it comes to mental health, we have heard today something that has been mentioned a lot, the idea of hope, the fact that we need hope, and offering death to someone who feels hopeless is not hope. I find it very troubling and a tragic irony that over the course of the time that I have had the honour and responsibility of serving the people of Battle River—Crowfoot we have talked a lot about suicide prevention and mental health. I think back to one of the debates that took place during my nomination campaign. I made a simple statement that I did not realize would have the effect it does today. It was when I and the other nomination contestants in Wainwright, which is home to a military base, were asked a general question about what was required for mental health. It was a productive discussion, but one of the statements I made in response to that was that I believed mental health is health. A young man came up to me afterward, the child of a veteran, and said he was so encouraged by the fact that somebody finally was willing to say that mental health was health.
I cannot emphasize enough how vitally important that context is to the discussions we are having around Bill C-39, and specifically the honour I have of representing a military base. The fact that there are veterans who have called Veterans Affairs asking for help yet were offered death defies what I thought was possible. The reality is that in this country we need to make sure we prioritize hope. When we look at the context of where we got to, this bill is happening a whole lot faster than the three-digit suicide hotline that this Parliament unanimously called for more than a year ago. Where political will exists things can move quickly, but unfortunately when it comes to the idea of help, health care for those struggling with suicidal thoughts, and ensuring that those who have mental health challenges are given the care they need, we have before us a bill that simply delays for one year the offer of death.
I have reflected much on this issue, although being elected in 2019. In much of the debate that took place over medical assistance in dying, we were told that the concerns raised by many members, both those who sit in the Conservative caucus today and others, including but not limited to the former attorney general and I believe representatives from all parties represented in this place, were simply considered a slippery slope, a logical fallacy, yet here we are.
In fact, in the context of this discussion, a story was sent to me, which I would like to read in this place: “Recently, my friend's mother, Carmen, was a victim of a physician attempting to coerce her into MAID. She was quite insistent on it, to the point of causing severe distress. His main point of sale was that it would save the hospital a lot of money, and it was her duty to do the right thing for the hospital and her family to just do it.”
I could not think of a circumstance where somebody would be more vulnerable, dealing with the challenges associated with mental health and some of the challenges associated with underlying health conditions, as was the case with this individual. Instead of being given that opportunity for life, it was presented as a duty to save the state a few dollars and to save her family from having to journey beside her through an illness.
The folks from Battle River—Crowfoot will know very well my faith background. I often think of some of the Bible verses that I was taught as a child and remember here today. I would like to read one here today, which is certainly one that has offered me hope during challenging times. It is Jeremiah 29:11. I think that many in the House will have heard this verse before. It goes, “For I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord. They are plans for good and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.”
As we enter into the discussion around the idea of whether or not somebody who is facing a challenging circumstance in their life and facing the challenges of mental health distress, to the point where they would be led to or, heaven forbid, coerced into making an irreversible decision such as medically assisted death, let us remember, as others in this place have mentioned, that as members of Parliament, as leaders in this country, and certainly as members of the government across the way, we should always endeavour to be catalysts for hope. We should ensure that, whether it be in partisan discussions, which members in the House will know well I love to participate in, or whether it be in coming to the assistance of those who walk through my office door in Battle River—Crowfoot, we do everything we can to extend the hope that is so desperately needed.
As we have this discussion, as we have this now one-year pause on the implementation of mental health being the sole underlying factor for medically assisted death, let us pause and think very carefully, not only as parliamentarians but as a country, as a society, as those who are called to look out for the most vulnerable among us, whether that be indigenous people, immigrants, women and the list goes on, to ensure that we respond not with the extension of a mechanism that would allow somebody to take their own life, but for those who are facing the most severe mental health challenges, let us ensure that our automatic response would be to offer that olive branch of hope.
1145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, since the Supreme Court decision in 2015 and going into 2016, the government has been working very closely with members on all sides of the House, even today, in passing legislation. It takes more than just government members to pass legislation.
I suspect that virtually all members will be supporting and voting in favour of this legislation because they see the value in what the government is proposing, which is to put off and ultimately delay things for a year so we can feel more comfortable in making sure we are getting things right.
Does the member acknowledge that the Government of Canada has appointed a task group of experts to develop MAID practice standards in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, regulatory bodies and clinicians across Canada? Does the member feel that those organizations and stakeholders should have any say in the future of MAID legislation?
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, given the very bureaucratic explanation the parliamentary secretary just read, what bears mentioning is the tragic irony that exists here.
We are debating the extension of medical assistance in dying to those with mental illness as the sole underlying condition, yet this House unanimously, only a number of years ago, passed a motion to bring about a 988 suicide prevention hotline, which certainly seems to be progressing at a snail's pace. Canadians do not need more bureaucratic language, more task forces and more excuses from a government that is refusing to acknowledge that instead of the expansion of medically assisted death by the state to those with mental illness, we should be talking about ensuring that all Canadians have hope to live for the future.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot of talk tonight about the need for support, so I will ask the member about that. In the year, potentially, during which there is time for additional consultations, and I hope the government will listen to the outcomes of those consultations, what kind of financial supports would the member suggest?
On the NDP side, we would like to see pharmacare. We think that people being healthy and able to afford their medication is important. Affordable housing is another opportunity to increase supports for folks. I wonder if the member could expand on some of the opportunities in the next year.
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that in the calls I have taken specifically over the last eight months or so, it seems there has been a real pickup in the number of seniors, single parents and women endeavouring to get out of difficult situations who, when going to the grocery store, are not able to afford the bare minimum that it takes to feed themselves and often their families.
We need to make sure we have a compassionate approach to welfare in this country to ensure that the most vulnerable get support. We also need to make sure that every opportunity for Canadians to succeed is granted to them. I often see in this place that this is being denied to Canadians. I see that in my own constituency.
The member has supported the shutdown and loss of tens of thousands of jobs in my constituency. Let us take a pause, and instead of promoting plans that would worsen the economic circumstances for many Canadians, like those promoted through the just transition the Prime Minister is pushing for, let us make sure we provide hope and opportunity for absolutely every Canadian. Let us make sure we are there to support those who need help when they need it most.
210 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/23 10:24:07 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate.
There being no further members rising for debate, pursuant to order made earlier today, the debate is deemed adjourned and the House is deemed adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 10:24 p.m.)
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, just over a year ago we had an election campaign, and in the Liberal platform there was nothing about the extension of medical assistance in dying for people with mental illness. What there was in the Liberal platform was a very clear promise to fund a Canada mental health transfer, $4.5 billion over five years, of which it is very clearly laid out, and I think it is on page 75 in the costing document, that by now almost $1 billion was to have been transferred already. We have not seen a cent of that almost $1 billion that was to have been transferred.
I wonder if the hon. member could speak to that disconnect that has a Liberal government that is not fulfilling its own promise to properly fund mental health but instead has moved forward and now is needing to pause, having moved forward on extending medical assistance in dying to people with mental illness.
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I partially answered that question in my speech. I am voting in favour of Bill C-39, which will provide for an extension of one year. I think the government needs to sit back, take a pause and listen to what the experts and Canadians are saying. Is this legislation they really want? Is it something we should move forward with?
I hope the government takes the time to reflect on this. Based on the comments the Minister of Justice has made in this House and in the media, I am not optimistic that he is going to do that. I think for him this is a one-year delay of his plan of implementation to provide MAID to people who are suffering with mental illness. I hope he takes the time, together with his party, to re-evaluate moving ahead with this legislation. In fact, I hope they stop it, because it is wrong.
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when we were looking at Bill C-14 two Parliaments ago, there was a statutory requirement for a review. The government went ahead and introduced Bill C-7 before we ever did that review. It accepted the Senate amendment to its bill before it established the special joint committee, of which I was a member, both in the previous Parliament and in this one. We struggled with many of the issues the member highlighted in his speech. Two of the themes we were grappling with as a committee were respect for individual autonomy versus protection of the vulnerable.
I share the member's concerns with this. How, in his mind, do we try to rectify those two concepts, so that we are respecting a person's autonomy to make decisions that are in their own interest but also making sure that we as a society are protecting the most vulnerable?
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
