44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 7, 2024 02:00PM
- Feb/7/24 3:16:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians spend over a billion dollars out of their own pockets on mental health services every year. With the cost of everything only going up, Canadians are making a difficult choice. Do they put food on the table or get the therapy they need?
The Liberals promised $4.5 billion in mental health funding, but they are still well over a billion dollars short, even with the bilateral agreements.
Our communities need support. It cannot be left to Conservative premiers. Will the Prime Minister commit to delivering direct mental health funding to community-based mental health organizations in the upcoming budget?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/24 5:00:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition that deals with mental illness and MAID. The petitioners say that mental illness is complex. It can include suicidal thoughts and other symptoms, and people really should be provided treatment and support and not offered MAID.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/24 5:30:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was pleasantly surprised to hear the minister say right off the bat that there was no reason to question whether there is such a thing as an irremediable mental disorder, but the Conservative members do not seem very clear on that. I do not know if she noticed the member for St. Albert—Edmonton's reaction when she said it. I would certainly be worried if I were her, because every time the House has held a debate on medical assistance in dying since 2015, we have been unable to reach a consensus. The Conservatives are always opposed to it.
On this bill, however, the Conservatives are in lockstep with the Liberals and in favour of indefinitely postponing access to MAID for people with mental disorders. Why is that? Is the minister not concerned about that? What evidence does she have to explain why, a year ago, the government said it was going to take a year to sort this out, but now it it is going to take three years? By then, the Conservative Party may have had the opportunity to take power.
I guess she knows very well that this is not going to happen. I am not talking about the Conservatives being elected; I am talking finally legislating on the issue of mental disorders.
222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/24 5:57:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would submit that 80% of psychiatrists in Ontario saying MAID should not be expanded in the case of mental illness is approaching a professional consensus. The member I would hope would be concerned by a government policy to expand MAID in cases of mental illness significantly impacting vulnerable persons and that he would question the appropriateness of such a policy in the face of opposition from so many experts.
With respect to the Quebec court decision he alluded to, and I believe he is referring to the Truchon decision, there was no pronouncement of the Quebec Superior Court on the question of mental illness. That was not part of the fact pattern in the case. The plaintiffs were not suffering from an underlying mental health disorder. There is no binding precedent forcing the government to enact this legislation. This is a political decision made by these Liberals.
150 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 6:05:29 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
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
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague, who always speaks very calmly and moderately. It is a pleasure to serve with him.
The NDP voted against Bill C‑14, which did not address the Carter decision's requirements at all. Bill C‑7 met the Carter decision's requirements with additional changes that required hard work, to clarify the issue.
Is the NDP saying no to the idea of one day moving forward on mental disorders, or would it rather put the subject off indefinitely?
We could start working on this tomorrow morning, and I am convinced that within a year, we could come up with something very promising.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
