SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24

Feb/13/24 10:14:31 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his contributions today and every day in this Chamber. The journey has been a detailed one, a responsible one and a prudent one. What we understand, as a government and as parliamentarians, is that mental illness causes suffering, and that suffering is equivalent to physical suffering. We also understand people have decision-making capacity, including those who are mentally ill. We also understand that, as a federal government in a federation where the health care system and the delivery of health care is primarily the jurisdiction of provinces, proceeding in a situation where the provinces have spoken with one voice, saying that provinces and territories are not ready to deliver medical assistance in dying for people who have mental illness as their sole underlying condition, in that context, we have to listen to those provinces and work with those provinces to help them with their readiness. The provinces have spoken uniformly to the Minister of Health and to myself about their lack of readiness and about the fact that more time would be beneficial to ensure that there is better take-up of the curriculum and that supports are in place for those who would assess and provide MAID, and that there is more understanding of how those safeguards would be implemented in the context of an individual who has mental illness as their sole underlying condition. Based on that, we are seeking, through this chamber and through the upper chamber, an extension of three years. That would be a prudent course when the situation is very significant, when the interests are significant and when then consequences are very permanent.

278 words

Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24

Hon. Arif Virani

Feb/13/24 10:17:59 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her contributions today and every day in the chamber. She outlines exactly the balance that we are trying to craft, and have tried to craft since 2016, in response to the Carter decision. Those are basically two different ideas: promoting the dignity and the autonomy of an individual in this country, and ensuring that we are protecting vulnerable people with adequate safeguards so they are not victimized. In this context, the safeguards and the protection are critical in the context of those who are mentally ill. That has been guiding theme here. In addition to the provinces and territories that have spoken up about the lack of system readiness, we have also heard from the Canadian Mental Health Association and from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health that they are also not ready and concur with the provinces' and territories' assessments. With respect to the last point raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, she talked about mental health supports. This is critical now more than ever, particularly coming out of the COVID pandemic. What I would say to her is that when we reached a deal about one year ago to provide a record number of dollars in support of the Canadian health care system, we outlined certain parameters for that support. One of the pillars of that support was to support mental health and the mental health needs of Canadians. That is a fundamental priority for us and will remain so.

259 words

Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC)

Feb/13/24 5:15:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do agree that this is an intensely personal decision for each one of us. I listened carefully to the member's speech. At the beginning, he seemed to suggest that the reason the government was compelled to move forward with expanding MAID for the mentally ill was that the lower courts have forced the government to do this, but the courts have not actually directed the Canadian government to implement MAID for the mentally ill. The Supreme Court of Canada has never opined on the matter. In fact, every time the Liberal government has been given the opportunity to appeal a case to the Supreme Court, it has refused to do so, probably for ideological reasons. I would ask the member for his opinion. Does he believe that the Supreme Court of Canada has directed the House, this Parliament, to implement medical assistance in dying for the mentally ill, yes or no?

155 words

Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

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