SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 277

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 7, 2024 02:00PM
  • Feb/7/24 5:35:38 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, at the beginning of her speech, the minister stated that irremediability is not up for debate. Respectfully, it is the core of the debate about whether MAID can be expanded in cases where mental disorders are the sole underlying condition. The overwhelming evidence from leading experts, including psychiatrists, is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine irremediability. That was the conclusion of the government's own expert panel, at page 9 of the report. The special joint committee heard evidence that clinicians could get it wrong 50% of the time. In other words, it is like flipping a coin with people's lives. Is the minister comfortable with that risk?
114 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/7/24 6:02:34 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague is always very eloquent when it comes to defending the “no” camp and the pro-life camp. Does his position represent the position of the Conservative party? Is that the official position of the Conservative Party? I just want us to be able to understand what is at stake in this debate today. Essentially, to him, irremediability is something that can never be proven. That means that, under a Conservative government, people who are suffering intolerably, who are dealing with intolerable suffering because they are victims of a mental disorder, could never be relieved of their suffering. What I am also hearing is that he claims that he can solve the problem of suffering and irremediable mental disorders by injecting a lot of money into the health care system to make access to health care something that can help these people put all their suffering behind them. Is that what he is telling us?
160 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/7/24 6:03:57 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Montcalm is a thoughtful member on this issue. With respect to irremediability, I am absolutely not comfortable with moving ahead with this expansion if it cannot be accurately determined. We have psychiatrists come before committee and say it is like flipping a coin, that clinicians get it wrong 50% of the time. That is not an appropriate risk. That is evidence of a policy that has not been well thought out, and that is dangerous and will negatively impact vulnerable persons on a matter of life and death. With respect to the position of the Conservative Party, yes, the position is that a common-sense Conservative government would permanently scrap this radical and dangerous expansion.
120 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border