44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 13, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/13/24 10:24:58 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer to the question posed by my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord is inadequate. Yes, in 2021, Quebec ruled on the issue before the report of the expert panel on mental illness was published.
However, the minister had a year to implement the most widely held recommendation of the special joint committee on medical assistance in dying concerning advance requests. Even a Conservative member from Quebec voted for it.
Why did he not introduce a bill aimed at enacting this provision, knowing full well, unless he is unaware, that Quebec was going to legislate accordingly? As for the report, we are talking about a year and he wants three years, but that is another story. He cannot possibly tell us that he did not have the time to implement the special joint committee's main recommendation.
Now it is a double standard. He accepted the special joint committee's recommendation about mental illness and made it into a bill, yet he is doing nothing about advance requests, which Canadians from coast to coast agree on.
Will the minister commit, if he does not support my amendment, to tabling a bill on advance requests as soon as possible?
204 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer one aspect of my question.
Why the double standard?
The minister had a full year to implement the recommendation of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying concerning advance requests. An Ipsos poll of 3,500 people showed 85% support across Canada. If the minister does not know that, he is not staying on top of his file.
As far as postponement is concerned, the minister has implemented the recommendation to the letter. Three years is too long. He knows that. However, he could have added another dimension to Bill C‑62. He had a year to do it. Will he introduce legislation on advance requests, yes or no?
Bill C‑14 is bad legislation.
The minister says that he worked carefully. People have been forced to go on hunger strikes to meet the reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion. Is that what he means by protecting vulnerable people?
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 11:41:30 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that, one day, it will be possible to alleviate the suffering of people struggling with an irremediable mental disorder.
I would also like to know whether he agrees that it would have been wiser for the government to implement the joint committee's leading recommendation regarding advance requests and to take advantage of the introduction of this bill to add that component.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 11:59:53 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-7
Mr. Speaker, my colleague participated in all three sessions on the issue. When Quebec tabled its report and when we voted on Bill C-7 in 2021, I was very reluctant to consider opening up MAID to mental disorders. However, I worked my way through the experts' report and I invite my colleague to read it again.
My colleague says there is nothing in the legislation. However, it does not have to be in the legislation. The regulations can set out the “how to”. Recommendations 10 and 16 are important safeguards.
Let us assume I am not questioning anything in my colleague's speech; the fact remains that, today, as I speak, there are people who are suffering irreversibly and intolerably.
What solution does my colleague have for those people?
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 12:19:14 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-7
Madam Speaker, my colleague gave us a history lesson.
He said that his party was not able to move forward because there was an election. I would point out to him that Quebec has had two elections in those six years. That did indeed delay the work, as he will agree. However, I do agree with him that Quebec's approach crosses party lines and is far more thorough.
Some people complain about the delay associated with the Carter decision, but that is because this Parliament never took the opportunity to try to change the Criminal Code before there was a court order. It never had the courage to do that, and so we were then stuck with a court order. Mr. Lametti did not stand up solely because the bill did not go far enough. He stood up because it violated patients' constitutional rights. Bill C-7 corrected that.
I would like my colleague to explain what he is advocating when it comes to advance requests for MAID. Does he think that the government, which had a year to introduce legislation, could have included that component in this bill?
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is a rather accurate summary of what happened in committee. The government decided to include in legislation the committee's main recommendation on mental disorders. My colleague sat on the committee that produced the report tabled in February 2023, which recommended allowing advance requests.
Why has his government not introduced a section on advance requests after a year of waiting? I think that would have been good for people who are currently suffering and who cannot make an advance request. Why is this not included in Bill C‑62?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 1:05:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sure my colleague's intention is not to exploit the pain of people who have been enduring irremediable suffering for decades. However, she is repeating an argument that we have heard often in this debate and that I feel is something completely separate.
The issue of access to primary mental health care has nothing to do with the decision we must make on whether to expand medical assistance in dying since, with regard to access to care, these people would not qualify under the criteria and guidelines of the expert report.
I do want us to advocate for better care. I wholeheartedly agree with that, but that is another debate. However, there are people who have been receiving care for decades and who are suffering, and the government wants to tell them to keep suffering for three years.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 2:38:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, medical assistance in dying is about freedom of choice.
The role of the state is not to decide for the person who is suffering; it is to guarantee the conditions under which people can make a free and informed choice. If someone does not want medical assistance in dying, they can simply not ask for it.
The National Assembly is unanimous: Quebec is ready. It has its own legislation.
Will the federal government amend the Criminal Code to allow for advance requests for people who are suffering?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 2:39:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Quebec would not have to ask for an exemption if Ottawa had implemented the majority recommendations on advance requests issued a year ago by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying.
Quebec is ready today, and patients should not have to suffer because of the government's inaction. If it does not want to condemn people to suffer needlessly, the federal government has two choices. It must either offer this exemption to the Criminal Code immediately or introduce a bill on advance requests.
Will the minister make the humane, compassionate choice?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 5:17:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite was wondering about the Carter decision. In my opinion, Carter clearly demonstrates that absolute prohibition would indeed be discriminatory and stigmatizing.
That said, I would like to ask him the following question.
My colleague obviously supports his government's bill, which defers application of the law by three years. Does this mean that he is going to lobby within his government so that, the day after tomorrow, once we have voted, the bill has gone through the Senate and the law has come into force, the committee will get back to work and eventually come up with a bill focusing on mental disorders, in particular, as well as on advance requests?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 6:39:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am having a hard time understanding what my colleague is saying. He knows very well that structural vulnerabilities, such as poverty, have an impact on overall health.
Is he saying that we need to deal with that before we can allow people who are mentally ill to get relief from their irremediable suffering? That is what I am getting from his speech, when recommendations 5 and 6 of the panel's report indicate that, if there is any doubt whatsoever as to structural vulnerabilities, then medical assistance in dying will not be made available.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 7:23:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have great deal of compassion for my colleague and want to thank him for so generously sharing his life experience. He says he speaks for those who have no voice, and he is living proof that suicidal ideation is reversible.
I wonder if he could dig a bit deeper and acknowledge that there are people who have no voice, who have yet to find a psychiatric treatment that eases their suffering and who struggle with mental disorders? What solutions does he have for them after 30 years of treatment?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague is claiming that Bill C-14 resulted in good legislation with its reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion. However, that did not even address the Carter ruling, since Ms. Carter did not have a condition that made her terminally ill. The Supreme Court ordered Parliament to regulate situations like those of Ms. Carter and Ms. Taylor. Limiting medical assistance in dying to people who are terminally ill completely ignores people like Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon, who had to go to court to assert their constitutional right. People have had to go on hunger strikes to meet the reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion.
Is that what my colleague calls compassion?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 7:52:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have high regard for my colleague. We are both members of the Standing Committee on Health.
However, I am a bit shocked this evening. I say this quite honestly and without being condescending, but, if I were to return to teaching and present a speech to show how much sophistry there can be in one speech, I would take his. It is a perfect example.
On one hand, he says he knows what he is talking about because he is a doctor, and we should believe him. On the other hand, because he is a doctor, he tells us we should not trust doctors. Then who should we trust? He tells us he is a doctor, he knows what he is talking about, but he is concerned for his children. Then he gives examples of people feeling suicidal when we know full well, and it has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt, that suicidal states can be reversed.
What is he afraid of?
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 8:52:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 9:15:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the member for Sherbrooke.
First, her minister acknowledged that Quebec's interdepartmental action plan for 2022-26 was excellent. We have heard a number of people here say that services need to be improved. What is she waiting for to transfer the money to Quebec?
Second, given what our Conservative colleagues have said, does she realize that by postponing the decision until 2027, the Liberals are passing the buck to a potential future Conservative government that will put an end to any hope of relief for people suffering from mental disorders?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 9:32:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, some Conservatives seem to think the Criminal Code no longer exists. We have had these debates before. When someone nefarious is working in the health care system, they simply need to be fired and reported to the police. That can happen. The provisions are there.
I therefore invite my colleagues who know of cases like this, which are always very specific cases, to report these people to the police. Are we going to generalize to such an extent that we are going to prevent any suffering person from asserting their right to self-determination and deciding what is good for them when it comes to something as intimate as their own death?
It is odd that Conservatives are libertarians when it comes to economics, yet when it comes to moral issues, they think the government needs to be in charge.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 10:06:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we need to move quickly to save people. I am all in favour of implementing social programs to save people, but does the member have a different point of view from the Conservatives right now? If we invest in social programs, will people all of a sudden get relief after 30 years of suffering and inadequate treatment?
The accessibility of frontline services is another debate. How can we shut down debate today by claiming that, if ever we move forward with expanding MAID eligibility to people with mental disorders, then that would be an affront to people's integrity, when the fact is that MAID is voluntary? What is more, there are people who are going to examine the request and, if a person is suicidal or receiving care for the first time, then they will not have access to medical assistance in dying.
I am trying hard to make people understand that just because a person makes a request does not mean that they will be eligible. When the member says things like that, how does she think that her point of view differs from what we have been hearing from the Conservatives today?
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
