44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 7, 2024 02:00PM
- Feb/7/24 2:30:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government wants a three-year extension on its deadline to comply with a ruling on medical assistance in dying for mental illness. Imagine what will happen if the Conservatives form government. That is not what we want, but the alternative is not much better. Just imagine what will happen if the Conservatives come to power: They would delay MAID forever and a day. They would never act on it.
Does the Prime Minister realize that he is acting as though he is afraid of the religious right?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, here we are again, just as we were last February. We are faced with an arbitrary deadline set by the Liberals for their radical plan to expand MAID for mental illness. The Liberal government is completely unprepared and, therefore, needs to bring in eleventh hour legislation to extend the implementation deadline that it set in the first place.
I cannot think of another time or another issue in which a government has effectively had to bring in emergency legislation twice to extend a deadline for the implementation of its own law. It is truly shambolic. How did we get into this mess, thanks to the Liberals? Very simply, what we have across the way is a radical and reckless government that put blind ideology ahead of evidence-based decision-making. That has been the consistent pattern, in terms of decisions the government has made with respect to this planned expansion. This started with David Lametti, the former justice minister, who accepted a radical Senate amendment back in 2021 to implement MAID for mental illness and then set an arbitrary two-year timeline for implementation.
It should be noted that the charter statement for the bill in which Lametti accepted that radical Senate amendment provided a rationale for excluding MAID in cases of mental illness. The minister said at the time that he and the government were against MAID for mental illness because there were inherent risks and challenges. Indeed, he was right, but then he suddenly flip-flopped and rammed the amendment through with very little debate, one and a half days of debate. There was no parliamentary study, no consultation with experts and affected groups, and no evidence that MAID for mental illness can be implemented safely and appropriately.
The Liberals got it completely backwards. Instead of studying the issue first to determine whether this could be implemented safely, they decided to move full steam ahead and study the issue after the fact. Had they approached this matter responsibly, they would have learned very early on that there are significant clinical, legal and ethical problems with expanding MAID in cases of mental illness.
Among those problems are two fundamental clinical issues. The first is the difficulty of predicting irremediability. In other words, it is difficult to predict whether someone with an underlying mental health condition will get better. That is problematic in two major ways.
One is from the standpoint of the law. Under the Criminal Code, in order to qualify for MAID, a person must have an irremediable condition. More specifically, an irremediable condition is defined as one in which a person has an incurable disease or illness and is in an irreversible state of decline. If it is not possible to accurately determine that someone with a mental illness is in an irreversible state of decline and will not get better, then how can MAID for mental illness be carried out within the law? It cannot.
More significantly, from an ethical standpoint, if it is difficult to predict whether someone will get better, what that means with certainty is that persons who could get better will have their lives prematurely ended. Such persons could go on to lead a healthy and productive life. This was underscored by evidence heard by the special joint committee on MAID, during both its initial study two years ago and its more recent study this past fall. The special joint committee heard evidence that clinicians can get the prediction around irremediability wrong 50% of the time. In other words, it is like flipping a coin with people's lives. Is that a risk that members of the House are prepared to take?
When I posed that question to the minister responsible for mental health, she essentially answered in the affirmative. She doubled down on her support for an expansion of MAID for mental illness in three short years. Flipping a coin, gambling with people's lives, is what MAID for mental illness will result in.
A second fundamental problem is difficulty on the part of clinicians in distinguishing a rational request for MAID from one motivated by suicidal ideation. That is underscored by the fact that, in 90% of suicide deaths, persons suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder, not to mention that suicidal thoughts are often a symptom of mental disorders. This is why psychiatrists who appeared before the special joint committee said that it is not possible to distinguish MAID for mental illness from suicide. At the very least, MAID for mental illness significantly blurs the line between suicide prevention and suicide facilitation. It fundamentally changes the character of MAID and transforms it into something akin to state-facilitated suicide. This demonstrates just how far down the slippery slope we have gone under the Liberals.
To paraphrase the minister, she said that there are robust safeguards in place in that persons with a mental illness would only be able to qualify after years of receiving treatments and not getting better. However, that is simply not accurate; no such safeguards are found in any legislation put forward by the Liberals. In fact, the expert panel that the Liberals appointed, incredibly, recommended that there be no additional safeguards. Therefore, under the MAID expansion, it is simply not accurate that one must go through treatments or that one must be suffering over an extended period of time in order to qualify. In fact, the Liberals expressly rejected such additional safeguards.
In the face of those political challenges, Conservatives called on the Liberals to put an indefinite pause on this expansion. Likewise, in the lead up to the March 2023 deadline for implementation, the arbitrary deadline set by the Liberals, the chairs of psychiatry at all 17 medical schools called on the Liberals to pause this expansion.
What did the Liberals do? Essentially, they kicked the can down the road. They introduced Bill C-39, which merely extended the deadline for implementation from March 2023 to March 2024. In other words, once again, the Liberals put ideology ahead of evidence-based decision-making, making what amounted to a political decision with a new arbitrary deadline.
Nearly a year has passed, and with respect to resolving the fundamental issues and problems regarding safely implementing MAID for mental illness, where are we today? No progress has been made.
Indeed, when the special joint committee heard from psychiatrists, the message was loud and clear that we should not move ahead with this. It is not safe, and it cannot be implemented appropriately. The responsible course for the government to take is to acknowledge that it simply got it wrong and put an indefinite pause on the expansion.
It is no surprise that, in the face of these challenges, there is a professional consensus against the expansion. We saw that last week, when a survey from the Ontario Psychiatric Association was released. It indicated that a full 80% of Ontario's psychiatrists do not believe the health care system in Canada can safely implement MAID for mental illness. Last week, seven of the 10 provincial health ministers, plus the health ministers from all three territories, called on the Liberals to put an indefinite pause on this expansion.
What did the Liberals do in response? Once again, they kicked the can down the road with Bill C-62, which is before us. They defied experts, the provinces and territories, and common sense. This bill is basically the same bill we were debating a year ago. Instead of a one-year pause, it provides a three-year pause, with absolutely no evidence to indicate that fundamental clinical problems can be resolved. These problems include predicting irremediability and distinguishing between a suicidal request versus a rational request.
We have a government that is telling us to forget the evidence. The minister said it is not even up for debate, that the government does not want to talk about evidence as part of this issue. She basically said to forget about irremediability. The bottom line is that we have a Liberal government that is determined to implement this radical policy against a consensus among psychiatrists and other advocates.
Indeed, to get an insight into the mindset across the way, last week, in a press conference, the Minister of Health said that there is a moral imperative to get ready for MAID for mental illness. What is the moral imperative? Is it to give up on people who are struggling with mental illness? Is it to offer death through the provision of MAID to persons who are struggling with mental health issues?
That is what these Liberals characterize as a moral imperative? I say it speaks to the moral bankruptcy of these Liberals after eight years of the Prime Minister.
When the Liberals talk about MAID and mental illness, they are always very vague about what they mean. They know that if Canadians fully understood what MAID for mental for illness meant, most Canadians would be absolutely appalled. The model practice standard, which I believe the minister alluded to, that was prepared by the government's so-called task group of experts provides that a mental disorder would include anything in the DSM-5. Any condition listed in the DSM-5 is what these Liberals are contemplating as constituting a condition that would qualify someone for MAID in the case of mental illness.
What are the conditions listed in the DSM-5? They include personality disorders, depression, schizophrenia and issues when persons suffer from addictions challenges. That is what we are talking about when it comes to MAID and mental illness. It is truly repulsive, it is morally bankrupt to the core and it says everything Canadians need to know about the values of these Liberals.
There is only one piece of good news in all of this, which is that this legislation provides a three-year pause, and what will happen between now and the expiration of those three years is a federal election. Canadians will have a choice. They can choose between a Liberal government that wants to provide death to persons who are struggling with mental illness or they can choose a common-sense Conservative government that will not give up on anyone, will be committed to offering persons struggling with mental health issues hope and health, and will permanently scrap this radical Liberal experiment that gambles with the lives of vulnerable Canadians.
1734 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/24 6:01:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not think the member is fully online on this. There is a Quebec court decision. That decision does put in a deadline that the government does need to respect and respond to.
At the beginning of his arguments, the member was trying to pass the blame. Let me remind the member that it was Stephen Harper's government, the same government which he worked for, back in 2015, that chose to do nothing, ignoring the issue. That was based on a Supreme Court decision.
Would the member not recognize that the issue cannot just be ignored? That is the track record of the Conservative Party.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/24 6:28:44 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-7
Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question.
I would like to point out to my colleague that the committee had very little time to assess whether the system was ready. We had two or three meetings to determine that and the deadline was ridiculous. However, many people came and told us that the system was ready.
The Quebec National Assembly took a stand in 2021. Bill C‑7 was passed after that, after a lot of work had been done and brought to a halt in Quebec. The Quebec college of physicians said that it still needed a little more time. However, there is a big difference between needing a little more time to ensure that everything is done safely and properly and putting off indefinitely the need to deal with the suffering of people with serious mental disorders.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be standing in the House today to join debate on Bill C-62. Forgive me if I am feeling a bit of déjà vu right now, because it was precisely one year ago, in February 2023, that the House was in a similar position with the earlier bill, Bill C-39.
That bill, of course, extended the delay of the implementation of the acceptance of mental disorders as a sole underlying medical condition to access MAID. That bill kicked the can down the road by one year. As a result, we find ourselves in a position where we are now approaching the deadline of March 17, 2024.
To go into a bit of detail on what Bill C-62 contains, it is not a very complex bill. It should be clear that the bill itself is not relitigating the issue that was first brought in by Bill C-7. I will get into Bill C-7 in a moment. This bill is seeking to further delay the implementation of MAID for mental disorders as a sole underlying medical condition until March 17, 2027, essentially three years down the road from now.
I also think an important part of the bill is that it inserts a legislative requirement that the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying be reconvened in advance of that change, so that a committee of parliamentarians made up of members of Parliament and senators can review our country's readiness and make a determination in advance of that date.
I have been a member of the special joint committee from the beginning, all the way back in the 43rd Parliament, and, speaking for myself, I am very glad to see that we do have that legislative requirement in Bill C-62 and that, more importantly, the committee is actually being given the time it should have had to study this very complex and sensitive issue in advance of its implementation. That is something we could have been much better served by in previous iterations of this legislation.
I think it is important that we explore a little of the history of how we got to this moment. As a member of this special joint committee, I personally have felt that we have been playing a game of catch-up to the change in law that was made in advance of any serious inquiry into this matter.
Bill C-7, in the 43rd Parliament, was, of course, the Government of Canada's response to the Truchon decision. It specifically created a separate track in the Criminal Code for people whose death was not naturally foreseeable. Previous to that, one had to have a medical condition in which one's natural death was foreseeable, so essentially it was for people who were suffering terminal stage cancer, who were going through a great deal of suffering and so on.
It is important to note, though, that when the government first brought Bill C-7 in, there were already questions at that time, in advance of the legislation, about what we do with people who are suffering from mental illness, who have suffered, in some cases, as my colleague pointed out, for decades, for whom treatments have not worked. What were we to do with that?
In the original version of the legislation, by law, the government was required to have the bill accompanied by a charter statement, but mental disorders were specifically excluded from the original version of Bill C-7. The government provided what I thought at the time was a fairly well-reasoned charter statement. It was understood that by excluding this, one could potentially engage two prominent sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely section 7, which is the security of the person, the fact that everyone essentially has the right to make a decision about what happens to their own body, and section 15, the equality clause, that the law has to treat everyone equally. With reference, those two sections may potentially be engaged by an exclusion.
The government identified the following in its charter statement:
First, evidence suggests that screening for decision-making capacity is particularly difficult, and subject to a high degree of error, in relation to persons who suffer from a mental illness serious enough to ground a request for MAID. Second, mental illness is generally less predictable than physical illness in terms of the course the illness will take over time. Finally, recent experience in the few countries that permit MAID for people whose sole medical condition is a mental illness (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) has raised concerns.
That is what the government's original position on Bill C-7 was.
The House passed Bill C-7 and it went off to the Senate. There, for reasons that remain shrouded in mystery to me to this day, the government decided to accept a Senate amendment, essentially at the eleventh hour, which had significant repercussions for the bill. Essentially, the Senate was reversing the government's original position on whether mental disorders qualified for MAID.
The government accepted that Senate amendment. Of course, Bill C-7, because it had been amended, had to come back to the House, and the government managed to cobble enough votes together to get it passed.
Therefore, we, as parliamentarians, were left with a law that had been changed in advance of the hard work being done to properly consult, research and discuss the issue with expert witnesses and with the health systems that have primary responsibility for the oversight of the change in law.
Yes, an expert panel was convened. The special joint committee was convened. Of course, its work was interrupted by the unnecessary calling of an election in the summer of 2021. Some very valuable time was lost there, because, of course, we then had to reconvene in the 44th Parliament, and a considerable amount of time was lost due to that.
However, it is important to realize that everything that has transpired since then has been as a result of that Senate amendment being accepted by the government. Again, I feel, and as a member of the special joint committee I think my feeling has some validity here, that we have been trying to play catch-up ever since that moment.
My time on the special joint committee has been difficult. It is not an easy subject for anyone to sit through, because the opinions of the people with lived experience and those who work in a professional capacity really are on all sides of the spectrum and everywhere in between. It can be quite difficult for a parliamentarian to work their way through that to try and understand the complex legal and medical arguments that exist behind this issue, but it is important.
I would say that, personally, my work on the committee has really been a struggle to find a balance between two concepts that sometimes seem to be in competition with each other. I am a firm believer in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think it is a very important document in Canadian history, and I believe that we have to respect an individual's right to make decisions over their own body, but that belief system of mine was always struggling with another concept, which is that sometimes society finds itself in a position in which it is necessary for it to step in and protect its most vulnerable members. I think those two themes were echoed, not only for me but for many of the witnesses who appeared before our committee and in the many briefs we received.
I also want to note that our special joint committee has existed twice in this Parliament. We tabled our second report in February last year, in advance of Bill C-39. The committee's mandate at that time was guided by five themes that we had to look at, and mental disorder as the sole underlying medical condition was one of those. Of course, we were reconvened after the passage of Bill C-39, but as my colleague from Montcalm pointed out, our runway was extremely short. It did not do justice to the amount of time that we actually needed and to the extreme complexity of this issue.
Just to give this clarity for people listening, I believe our first meeting as a committee was on October 31, and we had to conduct some committee business, and elect the chairs and vice chairs. We really had only three three-hour meetings with witnesses, so nine hours of testimony. We excluded, by necessity, a lot of people who I would dearly liked to have heard from, namely administrators of our public health system, elected officials of provincial governments and so on.
Because of the short timeline, we did not even have enough time to properly translate all the submissions that were sent to our committee because, of course, before they can be distributed to committee members, they have to be translated into French and English. That is a requirement that honours the fact that we are a bilingual country. We, as committee members, did not even have the opportunity to review important submissions, and those submissions came from people who had lived experience, who were dealing with the situation at home, but they also came from many professionals whose practice is involved in this specific area.
I have taken a position on this. The member for Abbotsford, in the fall, had introduced Bill C-314, and I did vote for that, so my vote on this matter is quite clear. I have been informed by the fact that at our committee, there has been a significant amount of professional discomfort expressed by people who practice medicine in this area, psychiatrists and psychologists. Sure, some of them may be acting in a paternalistic way, but I do not think that can be applied equally to everyone. I think for some of them, we have to review their opinions. We have to take them in the context in which they are given. I think we have to afford them a measure of respect, given the fact that these are their lifelong career choices and, in many cases, we can measure their experiences in decades.
I want to take a little time to read from some of the testimony we received from witnesses. We did hear from Dr. Jitender Sareen from the department of psychiatry at the University of Manitoba, who was there also on behalf of psychiatry departmental chairs at the Northern Ontario School of Medicine, McMaster, McGill, Memorial University, the University of Ottawa and Queen's University. His testimony was that they strongly recommended “an extended pause on expanding MAID to include mental disorders...because we're simply not ready.” He was quite emphatic on the point that we are not going to be ready in another year.
Dr. Trudo Lemmens, who is a professor of health law and policy in the faculty of law at the University of Toronto, was there to clarify some constitutional arguments. He was really trying to underline the fact that we have to keep the section 7 and section 15 rights in balance with section 1 and that this issue has not actually been decided by the courts, contrary to what we heard from some witnesses. Previous speakers on tonight's debate have also pointed out that the Truchon decision did not include any reference to mental disorders. That is an important point we have to make.
Dr. Sonu Gaind, who is the chief of the department of psychiatry at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, pointed out that:
MAID is for irremediable medical conditions. These are ones we can predict won't improve. Worldwide evidence shows we cannot predict irremediability in cases of mental illness, meaning that the primary safeguard underpinning MAID is already being bypassed, with evidence showing such predictions are wrong over half the time.
Scientific evidence shows we cannot distinguish suicidality caused by mental illness from motivations leading to psychiatric MAID requests, with overlapping characteristics suggesting there may be no distinction to make.
He also commented on the fact that the curriculum used does not teach assessors to distinguish between suicidality and psychiatric MAID requests, and so on.
We also heard from Dr. Tarek Rajji; he is the chair of the medical advisory committee at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. He stated:
CAMH's concern is that the health care system is not ready for March 2024. The clinical guidelines, resources and processes are not in place to assess, determine eligibility for and support or deliver MAID when eligibility is confirmed to people whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness.
These provide a snapshot of the widespread professional discomfort that exists out there, and I do not think we can discount those voices.
I would agree that there were also a number of professionals on the other side who did feel we were ready, and that is what makes this such an incredibly complex and sensitive subject to try to navigate as a parliamentarian. Again, we as a committee should have been afforded the time and space to really delve into these issues and to greatly expand our witness list to make sure we were in fact ready.
Members will note that our recent committee report had only one recommendation in it. I recognize that the recommendation was a result of the majority of the committee members. There were some dissenting opinions, notably from the senators who were part of the committee. However, the committee did recognize that Canada is not prepared for medical assistance in dying where mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition, and we did not attach an arbitrary timeline to the recommendation. Our specific call was that MAID should not be made available in Canada until the minister of health and the minister of justice are satisfied, based on recommendations from their respective departments and in consultation with their provincial and territorial counterparts and with indigenous peoples, that it can be safely and adequately provided.
We keep getting ourselves into trouble by setting arbitrary deadlines for ourselves. Setting up an arbitrary timeline is not an adequate replacement for the qualitative work that needs to be done by these departments. I would much prefer that we satisfy the qualitative requirement in the recommendation, where departments, experts and our provincial and territorial colleagues are in fact saying that they are going to be okay with that.
The recommendation and my reference to the provinces and territories is a great segue to the fact that there was also a letter sent to the Minister of Health. It was signed by seven out of 10 provinces and all three territories. The signatures include those of all the ministers of health and ministers responsible for mental health and addictions in those provinces, including Adrian Dix and Jennifer Whiteside from my own province of British Columbia. They quite clearly say:
The current March 17, 2024, deadline does not provide sufficient time to fully and appropriately prepare all provinces and territories across Canada....
We encourage you and [the] federal Justice Minister...to indefinitely pause the implementation of the expanded MAID eligibility criteria to enable further collaboration between provinces, territories and the federal government.
I will wrap up by saying that this is a very sensitive issue. I do think we should pass Bill C-62 and honour the calls we are hearing from the professions intimately involved in this issue and the calls coming from the provinces and territories. We need to step up to the plate and make sure we have a fully ready system in advance of the changing of any laws.
2639 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
