44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 7, 2024 02:00PM
- Feb/7/24 5:58:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-7
Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows, I have been on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying from the get-go.
If he will recall, in the 43rd Parliament, when this House was dealing with Bill C-7, the government's original charter statement, which provided its rationale for excluding mental disorders as the sole underlying medical condition, was fairly well reasoned, and explained that section 7 and section 15 of the charter can be involved here. However, we have to remember section 1. Sometimes we may need to limit rights.
For me, personally, I am big believer in the charter, but I struggled through this whole process in how to find that balance between an individual's charter-protected rights but also the need of society to sometimes step in and protect the most vulnerable.
Could the member tell us how he personally approached finding that balance, and to also put it in the context that so many people in Canada, whether they are in rural or remote communities or in our urban centres, are marginalized and do not have access to the proper mental health care supports they so desperately need?
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/24 5:59:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I enjoyed working with my colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, on the special joint committee.
The manner in which I approached this issue was by following the evidence to determine whether this expansion could be implemented safely and appropriately. The overwhelming evidence is that it cannot. It need not have been this way. We need not be here for a second time on the eve of an implementation date that was arbitrarily set by the Liberals.
We could have studied this issue. We could have heard from experts. We could have heard from other groups about this, without moving ahead with legislation before undertaking that important consultation.
Let me simply say that the Liberal government has gotten it backwards. It has gotten it wrong. What the government should be doing is coming back to this House and putting an indefinite pause on this expansion.
150 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 6:01:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-7
Madam Speaker, if the member is referring to the Truchon decision, that was not what the Truchon decision provided for.
That was outside the scope of the Truchon decision. Evidenced by that is the fact that when the Liberals responded to Truchon by introducing Bill C-7, mental illness as the sole underlying condition was expressly excluded from the legislation.
This is a political decision brought on by the Liberals.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/24 6:04:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the arrogance and incompetence of the members opposite on this issue is truly alarming and frightening. Are they not aware that 30 legal experts wrote a letter to the former justice minister and cabinet saying, “Parliament is not forced by the courts to legalize MAID”.
What does the hon. member make of this argument, from the minister who spoke earlier, that somehow, in her words, the debate is over?
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/24 6:05:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is arrogance, it is recklessness and it is incredible. It is incredible in the sense that they hide behind a Quebec court decision. It is a decision, frankly, they should have appealed but did not. It did not pronounce on the question of MAID and mental illness, and they are now using that as the basis to say we need to move forward with this legislation, even though, when they initially responded, they said they were going to exclude mental illness from the legislation. They are trying to have it both ways.
They got into this mess because David Lametti accepted a radical Senate amendment and it has been a three-year mess ever since.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/24 6:06:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I made a technical error in my vote on PMB Motion No. 86 on the seventh vote today, and I would very much appreciate the House's unanimous consent to allow me to change my vote to no.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/24 6:06:43 p.m.
- Watch
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I never thought I would end up debating medical assistance in dying in the House again, or reliving what we went through when we passed Bill C‑14, a bad law. I never expected that the Liberals would again be in the same position, or show the same lack of courage they did with Bill C‑14, which was prescribed by the Carter-Taylor decision.
Quebec passed its legislation on end-of-life care before the Carter decision. In the Carter decision, the court ruled that Quebec had to revise its legislation to include more than end-of-life issues only. The Parliament of Canada, which had never considered this before, was also told that it had to address not only end-of-life issues, but also degenerative diseases like those afflicting Ms. Carter and Ms. Taylor. Ms. Carter had spinal stenosis and Ms. Taylor had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. In its decision, the court ruled that Parliament had to legislate because both women's right to life was being infringed.
Why was their right to life being infringed? The right to life is not a minor right. This should be of interest to the Conservatives, who are pro-life. I am too, in that sense. The right to life was being infringed because these people had to shorten their lives when they would have liked to live until their suffering became intolerable.
As members of Parliament, as representatives of the state and the people, our duty is not to decide what the patient needs when it comes to an issue as personal as their death. The role of the state is to ensure the conditions needed for them to exercise free will, so that they can make a free and informed decision. That is the role of the state. Otherwise, we get into government paternalism.
I invite my Conservative colleague to do some reading in clinical ethics and not to limit himself to what psychiatrists in Ontario are saying. We know that psychiatrists are divided on the issue. In fact, if there is one discipline in which medical paternalism continues to reign, it is psychiatry. We would never have seen the progress that we have seen in clinical ethics if medical paternalism in general still ruled supreme.
What happened for patients to be given back control over their end of life? We find the answer to that question in the bioethics literature. In the past, some doctors who had cancer said they did not want treatment. Now, we have good medical practices, whereas in the past, aggressive treatment was the standard. The doctors said that they wanted to live the two years they had left without undergoing treatment that would leave them bedridden. They claimed that they wanted to spend quality time with their loved ones. It took doctors with cancer demanding that option for patients to be able to discuss these sorts of things with their own doctor. In the 1960s, there were patients who only found out that they were dying of an incurable disease and were in fact at the end of their life when the priest came to their room to administer the last rites. They were not even told that they were terminally ill. That was medical paternalism.
Over time, the right to die was granted. Patients were granted the right to die and the opportunity to refuse aggressive treatment. That is when we began providing the palliative care that is so important to my Conservative friends. Before that, palliative care was called passive euthanasia, and it was not allowed.
Medical paternalism has been gradually set aside. What has this led to?
It has led to the right to refuse life-saving treatment, to stop treatment. These are all rights we have today.
We have before us a bill that perpetuates suffering indefinitely for people with a severe mental disorder who have been unable to relieve their suffering through treatment. That is no mean feat. They have spent 10, 20, 30 years suffering, trying multiple treatments and being stigmatized by the society in which they live.
We are able to establish the decision-making capacity of people living with a severe mental disorder. For those capable of making decisions, the court told us that it would be discriminatory and stigmatizing if, just because they have a severe mental disorder causing suffering that psychiatry is unable to properly change or relieve, they were told what was best for them and that they should continue to suffer forever, while psychiatry need only provide a palliative care option until the end. That is what we are discussing today.
I will calm down. It is just that I heard some nonsense earlier.
Then what happens? There was Bill C‑7, which was rather cautious. It set a two-year deadline for creating an expert panel. Who read the report of the expert panel in the House? Who read it before voting? This is the second vote we are having on this subject. We have to read the report of the expert panel. Indeed, the irremediable aspect is something that is hard to implement. Admittedly, there is an additional difficulty, but the expert report does set out guidelines. That is what this is about.
Then the Liberals show up today with a clause they added that says we are going to work with an expert panel for two years and create a joint committee. The problem is that the joint committees have always been set up at the last minute, too close to the deadline.
When we submitted our report the last time, we were forced to admit that, before moving forward with the issue of mental disorders, we needed to assess the situation in the field. Even though I think the group that was supposed to work on it had developed important guidelines and standards of practice, it was obvious to me that there was still not quite enough time. Everyone told us so, including the Collège des médecins du Québec—I will have more to say later about its criteria and guidelines for proceeding that I find useful.
How is it that, a year ago, the government gave itself a one-year deadline and thought that would be enough time? A lot of work has been done in that year, yet the government is saying we should put it off until 2027.
We heard what the Conservatives just said. We can forget about MAID if they form government; they will put it off indefinitely. That means that people will continue to suffer indefinitely, and that suffering will be intolerable because psychiatry is unable to provide relief other than by rendering them virtually incapacitated. Somehow, people find that morally acceptable. I honestly do not know where the morality lies in that. Some people have very flexible morals. In any case, it has nothing to do with suffering.
When people claim that someone living with depression could have access to medical assistance in dying, it is simply not true. Just because someone applies for MAID does not mean they will be able to access it. The assessors will do their job. Stefanie Green was saying that a person in a suicidal crisis is not eligible for medical assistance in dying. Someone who raises their hand and says that they want MAID simply because we allow mental disorders to be eligible grounds for MAID would not have access to it because they have not received proper care.
However, there would be an opportunity for prevention, because we could provide treatment at that time. It is wrong to say that 90% of people who have suicidal ideation and commit suicide received proper care. No, they did not receive proper care. Very often, when people commit suicide, no one saw it coming at all.
What are we going to do? What are the Conservatives going to to with people who are desperate and suffering and who currently still have hope that we are going to consider their suffering and find a solution so that things are done properly and by the law? What do they think those individuals are going to do in their despair? Is suicide morally acceptable? Suicide attests to the failure of our system and our society. I will never, ever accept suicide. That is why, when we talk about medical assistance in dying, we are not in the same page at all.
A person who is feeling suicidal is not eligible. Someone who has just been taken into care and diagnosed is not eligible. Applications take structural vulnerabilities into account. Just because someone is poor and does not have access to care does not mean that they will be eligible for medical assistance in dying. They would not be eligible, because they would have to have tried every possible treatment. Someone who unjustifiably refuses treatment that could improve their condition will not be eligible. If accessible and effective treatments are available and the person refuses them, they are ineligible. If the assessors cannot agree that the criteria have been met, the person is not eligible either.
The Collège des médecins du Québec told us that it remains at the discussion stage, that it has established its guidelines and it still needs time in order to eventually get there. Personally, I think one year would have been enough, otherwise we might give up. We could end up being hypocritical and leave it to chance. We might as well flip a coin.
The Liberals need to work hard if they want to win the election. If not, they are going to be leaving the fate of those who are suffering in the hands of people who just told us today that this will not happen on their watch, that they support suffering for life everlasting, and that they know what is moral and right for these people.
The Quebec college of physicians said, and I quote, “the decision to grant MAID to someone with a mental disorder should not be viewed solely as an episode of care. Rather, the decision should be made following a fair and comprehensive assessment of the patient's situation.” We are talking about taking the time to establish the chronicity of the condition.
The college of physicians also set out a second condition. It said, and I quote, “the patient must not exhibit suicidal ideation, as with major depressive disorders”. It might be a good idea for the members of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to hear that, although they are on the same committee as I am and that was said in committee.
That is a far cry from the grandstanding Leader of the Opposition who stands up in the House and asks the Prime Minister, in prime time, whether medical assistance in dying is the only thing he has to offer those who are depressed and having a hard time making ends meet. That is a bit much.
The third criterion laid out by the college of physicians states that the patient must “experience intense and prolonged psychological suffering, as confirmed by severe symptoms and overall functional impairment, over a long period of time, leaving them with no hope that the weight of their situation will ease. This prevents them from being fulfilled and causes them to see their existence as devoid of meaning.”
The experts tell us that they cannot apply irremediability and suffering metrics to mental health, and that prevents them from creating a category as a grounds for MAID. It has to be done on a case-by-case basis. All questions of clinical ethics, in terms of clinical assessment, are examined on a case-by-case basis. Some seem to think that going on a case-by-case basis is hell and that it is not a rigorous process. It is very rigorous.
The fourth condition states, “the patient must have been receiving care and appropriate follow-up over an extensive period of time.” Access to care must have been available. Otherwise, no access to medical assistance in dying will be provided for mental disorders. It seems to me that we heard the same thing in committee. We heard the same criteria.
At some point, we have to have the courage of our convictions. I believe that we have to offer relief to people experiencing intolerable suffering, who have reached their limit. I also believe that we must not make decisions about their life or quality of life for them. They alone can decide what is tolerable or intolerable.
When people talk to me about a slippery slope, they seem to be working on the assumption that all health care workers are evil. However, people who work in health care need to be kind. As far as I know, gaining admission to medical school is not easy. I imagine that the selection criteria are quite strict and challenging. The same goes for nursing.
The fifth condition states, “requests [from social workers] must undergo a multidisciplinary assessment, including by the physician or specialized nurse practitioner in the field of mental health who has treated the individual”. This is in the case of a follow-up assessment, not in the midst an episode. A person cannot get medical assistance in dying simply by saying that their life no longer has any meaning. Making a request does not mean one is eligible.
The Collège des médecins du Québec concluded by saying, “Under these conditions, it would be possible, in the CMQ's view, to provide individuals suffering from a grievous and irreversible mental disorder with access to MAID. It is important to prevent situations where individuals opt for MAID out of desperation, because they do not have access to proper care or do not consider the care available to be acceptable, such as an extended stay in a facility without the prospect of gaining more autonomy.”
That is the exact opposite of the nonsense we heard earlier. We were told that this was like a house of horrors, that we were dealing with experts and doctors who simply wanted to harm people's physical integrity. We have to be careful.
To access MAID, the individual must first make a request, which is then followed by informed consent. When it comes to mental disorders, doctors currently perform a daily assessment of a person's decision-making capacity if they have a mental disorder and a comorbidity, an additional illness that is hastening their death. Everyone agrees that these people are capable of choosing and consenting to medical assistance in dying. MAID practitioners have long been determining the decision-making capacity of people with a mental disorder. Just because someone has a mental disorder does not mean that their right to self-determination and to make decisions should be violated. That is discrimination and stigmatization.
When people tell me they want to protect the vulnerable, I wonder who could be more vulnerable than someone who has suffered for decades with a mental disorder and has tried every treatment. Who could be more vulnerable than someone grappling with a paternalistic psychiatrist—I am choosing my words carefully—who thinks he knows better than his patient what treatment they need, then chains them to a palliative care pathway and throws away the key because he cannot bring himself to admit that he is unable to provide relief to his patient?
At committee, I put the question to some psychiatrists who told us we were on the wrong track. They admitted that, in 25 or 30 years of practice, they had seen some patients fall through the cracks. Indeed, it is for this small group of people who fall through the cracks in psychiatry that this expansion is necessary. We need to show a little humanity here in the House.
2677 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/24 6:27:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I extend my sincere thanks to the member across the way for the details and the compassion with which he made his comments about patient-centred decisions and things around the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we protect in the House. Right now, I understand the Quebec legislature is debating the Superior Court decision. I was hoping we would have a more fulsome debate tonight, and I was surprised the Bloc did not support having that debate.
I spoke with a nurse practitioner in my area who comes from Ottawa to Guelph to provide service, and she can only do it as a volunteer because she is not paid by the province to work outside of Ottawa. On the ground, we really have problems building capacity. Something that this bill tries to address is building the capacity of our health care system within the provinces to be able to provide MAID effectively in our communities.
Could the member maybe reflect on the need for us to work with provinces and their health care systems to build our capacity and, at the same time, to work with legislatures, both provincially and federally, so that we can get this across the line together, and comment on the amount of time that could take?
214 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
- Feb/7/24 6:29:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it was a pleasure to work the member for Montcalm on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. We have both been on that committee from the get-go, and we have both been exposed to a wide range of witness testimony and the briefs.
Following up slightly on the earlier question, our responsibility here in the federal scene, of course, deals primarily with just the Criminal Code. Once we complete our task with the Criminal Code, the oversight and accountability of the system falls largely on the provinces.
It is not insignificant that seven out of 10 provinces and all three territories had their health ministers and ministers responsible for mental health and addictions sign a letter, in which they referenced the fact that back in November, they were already raising concerns, and they have clearly called for an indefinite pause. I understand Quebec was not a signatory to this, but the very fact that seven provinces and three territories are, and those ministers are responsible for the oversight of those medical systems, I do not think that is insignificant.
I am wondering if the member for Montcalm can reflect on that. When we have clear direction from ministers responsible for the system saying that they are not ready, how does he respond to those concerns?
221 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. In the supplementary report that I tabled, I note that, if we had had more time, we could have engaged with these people. By engaging with these people, we could have understood exactly what their concerns were.
A certain number of associations did tell us that everything was ready for us to do this. The member knows that. For example, the Association of Medical Assistance in Dying Assessors and Providers came and told us after Bill C‑14 and Bill C‑7 were introduced that not all doctors were trained to be MAID providers. There was only a small number and they would be able to meet the demand. When it comes to mental disorders, we are talking about an even smaller number still. The people from this association felt that they were able to do this safely. There was also the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the Canadian Bar Association, the Association des médecins psychiatres du Québec, the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada, the Nova Scotia department of health, and so on.
It comes down to the way people followed the debate and the way they debated within the governments because they sometimes have other concerns. I would have liked to hear them. The government did not call on us as soon as Parliament returned so that we could do a review and ask all of the questions we had. We could have even gone out into the community to see what was missing, but we were unable to.
Here is what I think: We could do it right now, in the next year. We need to work together, get out there and explain it, see what is going on, and share the guidelines. Then, if we need another year, we can take it. Waiting until 2027 to do this is definitely not a progressive way of going about it.
325 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/24 6:34:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, from what I understand there are inconsistencies between the processes in the different provinces. Quebec has done its part.
What I am hearing this evening is often what individuals may have experienced. We are talking about human suffering. I know what I am talking about because I have experienced it. Everything my colleague is talking about, everything he got out of all these experts, I experienced it.
Beyond a potential fear of getting to the bottom of things, of figuring out what else is needed to make an informed choice, there is urgency. I would like my colleague to tell me what our dear colleagues here might be lacking to make an informed decision on the fate of human life.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/24 6:35:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, briefly put, I would say they lack courage. In this place, courage and compassion are lacking, and action is based far too much on ideology.
As I said earlier, only the individual can compare their life in one condition to their life in another condition, and this does not mean comparing two different lives. In that sense, we cannot turn a deaf ear to suffering. We have to listen and we have to act to make sure that these people receive care, of course. That is our goal. However, no matter how difficult it may be to determine whether a condition is irremediable, it would be intellectually dishonest to claim today that psychiatric treatment can relieve the suffering of everyone with severe mental disorders. For those whose suffering cannot be relieved and who request MAID in a considered and coherent manner, with all the safeguards I mentioned earlier in place, we have a duty to listen to what they think and to legislate accordingly.
166 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
- Feb/7/24 6:56:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
Before I begin my question, I want to recognize the life of Rino Piva, from our community of Kamloops, who has passed away. He leaves behind his wife of 63 years, Dina, and his children, Laura, Dennis and Mario. I know them all well and wish them all the best in this difficult time of condolence.
I will move on to my question for my colleague. So many times, the Liberal government was told that we could not have MAID proceed in the manner that it did, yet the government pressed on. Why, does he believe, the government just did not listen?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/24 6:57:46 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-7
Madam Speaker, honestly, I do not know.
I was here for Bill C-7. I thought the government's original position with respect to that bill was quite clear. For some reason, the Liberals did a complete 180 when it came to the Senate's amending the bill. To this day, I do not think I—
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
