SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 283 - Feb/15/24

Feb/15/24 11:02:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me first of all thank that member for bringing such a thoughtful approach to our work at the committee and now here in the House. I agree with him that we should have an indefinite pause on this expansion, but with respect to the Supreme Court of Canada, I think it would be wrong to presume what the court might read into any additional changes that might happen. We do know that the federal government refused to appeal lower court decisions, like the EF decision in Alberta and the Truchon case in Quebec, to the Supreme Court of Canada, which is where this type of final decision should rest. I expect fully that eventually a case will make its way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada will opine whether the Carter decision should go beyond just the incurable, intolerable illnesses where death was reasonably foreseeable and should in fact include vulnerable populations like the mentally ill.

166 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Feb/15/24 11:03:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague complains that people are accusing him of fearmongering, but he is unable to use the right technical terms to debate this issue. The Council of Canadian Academies does not refer to children. Referring to children in general shows a lack of intellectual rigour in a debate like this. The right term is “mature minors”. For example, at the age of 15, Charles Gignac was diagnosed with a cancer that ate his bones. He was fit as a fiddle, an athlete with a very strong heart. He suffered for two years because he was not eligible for medical assistance in dying. He requested medical assistance in dying. He passed away at 17 years and 10 months, without MAID, in pain and anguish. What treatment did he receive? He was given palliative sedation because no one was able to relieve his suffering. After he received palliative sedation, his loved ones watched him spend 24 hours in an agitated, delirious state before he died. Is that what my colleague calls compassion?

174 words

Hon. Ed Fast

Feb/15/24 11:05:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am deeply disturbed that individual would actually promote assisted death for children. Let us not forget this. The suggestion is not only that this would be assisted death for mature minors. There is the suggestion that parents would not have the final say over whether their children would be euthanized. This is appalling. Is this the state of our country, where we have parties in the House of Commons actually promoting the deaths of children when in fact they can be helped and treated? We can do better as a country; I know we can.

98 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Feb/15/24 11:05:58 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague shares my concern that we are now 30-some days away from an arbitrary deadline that was imposed. We passed a national palliative care motion that I brought in 2016, and nothing was done. In 2019, we brought forward the national suicide prevention strategy that was based on the work in Nunavut. Everybody signed off, and nothing was done. Now we are being told that we should be making it easier for people who are suffering with mental illness, people who are on the streets, people using opioids, people who are hopeless, and that we should be fast-tracking that rather than putting in place the protections needed to protect people. What are my hon. colleague's thoughts are on that?

127 words

Hon. Ed Fast

Feb/15/24 11:06:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his work at the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, where we did excellent work in coming up with a recommendation, which unfortunately the government did not choose to follow in its entirety. We had called for an indefinite pause. Unfortunately, the government felt an arbitrary three years was sufficient. To answer his question, I have great concern the government's promises to deliver improved palliative care supports to the provinces and to deliver improved mental health supports to them have not been fulfilled. Now people are asking for death because they are not getting those supports. That truly is sad.

112 words

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Feb/15/24 11:07:36 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-314

Madam Speaker, we come here to debate the most serious of issues, and we are faced with one of those issues today. I want to start by being very up front. I do not think that a pause is appropriate for the expansion of medical assistance in dying to those whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness. There must be an abolition of the expansion to those who are most vulnerable and to those who are suffering. We have heard that the Liberal government is pushing this off to avoid political consequences in the next election, and it is shameful. However, it does present an opportunity, because a Conservative government would not allow the expansion of doctor-assisted death to people for whom our country should be offering hope and help. The concrete solutions that have been put forward by Conservative members have been heard in the House, including by my hon. colleague from Cariboo—Prince George with the 988 suicide prevention hotline, which he shamed the government into taking action on. While it took that shame for the Liberals to act, it does offer some help to those who desperately need it. The hon. member for Abbotsford spoke just before I did. His Bill C-314 would have scrapped doctor-assisted death for those whose sole underlying medical condition was mental illness, but the government rejected that. With respect to the provinces and territories, which are constitutionally obligated to deliver on health care, the majority of their heads of government have had to call for the government to stop this reckless march forward. While I will vote in favour of a pause, I cannot abide anyone believing that I am okay with this continuing three years from now. This debate is following the Liberals' pulling the emergency brake on the reckless expansion of MAID just a year ago. Given the chance, there would be a wide expansion of MAID, and not just to those who are suffering from mental illness and addiction. This expansion of doctor-assisted suicide cannot be carried out safely or justly. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the irremediability of a mental disorder in individual cases, meaning we cannot say, with the certainty that is required in a matter that truly is life or death, whether a person suffering from mental illness will get better. In appearing before the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, on which I sat as a vice-chair, Dr. Jitender Sareen, a physician in the department of psychiatry at the University of Manitoba, testified, said: We strongly recommend an extended pause on expanding MAID to include mental disorders as the sole underlying medical condition in Canada, because we're simply not ready. In our experience, people recover from long periods—“long” meaning decades—of suffering with depression, anxiety, schizophrenia and addictions with appropriate evidence-based treatments. We strongly believe that making MAID available for mental disorders will facilitate unnecessary deaths in Canada and negatively impact suicide prevention efforts. The clinical role is to instill hope, not to lead patients toward death. Dr. Sareen went on to say: Unlike physical conditions that drive MAID requests, we do not understand the biological basis of mental disorders and addictions, but we know that they can resolve over time. The real discrimination and lack of equity is not providing care for people with mental disorders and addictions. I could not agree more with the doctor. We have a moral obligation in our society to ensure that every person is treated with the inherent dignity and value with which they are created, everyone. They do not get that when we offer them death instead of help and hope, treatment and care. Psychiatrists and even the Prime Minister's so-called expert panel cannot know if someone is going to recover from mental illness, and this under a government where wait times for psychiatric treatment can be over half of a decade. If the government goes ahead with this, people who would have gotten better will not get the chance, because they will have been killed at the hand of the government. Further, it is difficult for a clinician to distinguish between a rational request for medical assistance in dying where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition and one motivated by suicidal ideation. On the question of suicidality, Dr. Sareen said: ...there is no clear operational definition differentiating between when someone is asking for MAID and when someone is asking for suicide when they're not dying. Internationally, this is the differentiation. If somebody is dying, then it can be considered MAID. When they're not dying, it is considered suicide. On the same question, Dr. Tarek Rajji stated, “There is no clear way to separate suicidal ideation or a suicide plan from requests for MAID.” With the line being blurred between suicidal ideation and so-called rational requests for medical assistance in dying, evidence from jurisdictions that have assisted suicide for mental disorders, both suicides and medically facilitated death go up. We cannot move forward with this dangerous game that the government is playing, the plan of moving full steam ahead no matter what the cost. The minister said that the Liberals had the moral imperative to move ahead with an assisted suicide regime. Hopelessness and misery, that is their imperative. A moral imperative? It is immoral. This is the same government that has degraded life in the country to the point where an entire generation of people is giving up hope. Two million Canadians are lined up at food banks a month and once former middle-class families are living in their cars. People are being offered MAID instead of a wheelchair, after serving our country and going to veterans affairs for help. People are being offered MAID at routine doctor appointments. People are seeking MAID because they cannot afford housing. People are seeking MAID because they cannot get the psychiatric care they need. This is blind ideology ahead of evidence. It is death on demand for any reason. Depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, personality disorders and addictions will all become justifications for death under the Liberal government if this plan is allowed to be carried forward. A new generation of addicts will have been created, by normalizing and legalizing opioids that are being peddled to our children. The MAID regime seems like it will become the government's plan for addictions. Rather than offering treatment and a chance to get better to people who are suffering, they are being offered death. There is hope yet, if we pass this bill, that we could stop the expansion of MAID to people who are suffering. We can make a commitment, as the representatives of Canadians, to deliver on the health, help, hope and treatment that Canadians deserve, that every human person deserves. Dignity, respect, hope and life, that is what we are going to have to vote to protect. I am proud to stand and vote in support of life.

1177 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

Feb/15/24 11:17:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as an advanced democratic country, Canada sometimes brings in legislation on issues that have never been dealt with before. Sometimes Canada is one of the first countries in the world to deal with these types of issues. When we bring in legislation that fundamentally affects every single Canadian, sometimes we have to look at it again to see how we can serve Canadians, whether we are stepping on the toes of the fundamental rights of Canadians. Earlier the hon. member for Abbotsford said that there was no national consensus. I would like to ask the member whether he agrees with me that due to the different religious beliefs, different religious faiths and philosophies, we cannot have national unanimity on issues like this.

124 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Feb/15/24 11:18:12 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that this is a question of religion. I think it is simply a question of humanity and how we care for the most vulnerable among us. This is an imperative that we have as parliamentarians. Ensuring that we care for the least of us, those who are most in need of our help, is the highest calling we can answer. To allow MAID for folks whose only medical condition is mental illness would be an abdication of that. Allowing state-sanctioned death, or doctor-assisted suicide in that case, is an abdication of our responsibilities to the most vulnerable, regardless of one's beliefs or creed.

112 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Feb/15/24 11:19:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Voltaire said that fanaticism pretends to be the child of religion. I think we have proof of that again today, unfortunately. Our colleague stated the Conservatives' position on freedom of choice, on medical assistance in dying and on providing relief to people who are suffering. The Conservatives want to abolish medical assistance in dying. That is what we just heard. The Liberals claim their position is different, but I cannot tell the difference. They are going to put the decision off for three years, but by then, the Conservatives will be in power and can decide to abolish it. Then there is the NDP, which is applauding that. Is the real coalition basically just the Ottawa coalition?

119 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Feb/15/24 11:20:06 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have an epidemic in this country of people who are suffering from addiction. We have people who are suffering from mental illness. I am not going to be shamed by anyone who wants to call me a fanatic for saying that we need to protect the vulnerable. If there are members in this place, and I abhor the thought, who would rather have the government kill people than give them the treatment they deserve, have it abandon its responsibility, then I genuinely hope we do not elect anyone to this place who represents Canadians who believe that. I certainly do not. I believe in helping the most in need.

112 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/15/24 11:21:02 a.m.
Watch

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on a point of order.

12 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Feb/15/24 11:21:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will not stand for anyone saying that I am telling the government to kill people. I demand an immediate apology.

23 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/15/24 11:21:13 a.m.
Watch

That is a point of debate. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on another point of order.

19 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Feb/15/24 11:21:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is not a point of debate. Words have meaning. Saying that I am encouraging the government to kill people has no place in a debate. The member can say he disagrees with me, but he cannot say that.

41 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/15/24 11:21:38 a.m.
Watch

I will check the record and get back to the House if necessary. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

21 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Feb/15/24 11:21:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would challenge the member. The government is not killing people, but it is failing to put in place protections for people. There is a difference, and our language does matter, but we need to have a strong support for everyone. To simply say that people are being killed does not help our conversation. I would ask my colleague to reflect on that.

65 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Feb/15/24 11:22:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, through action or inaction, the result is the same. By failing to help the vulnerable, by failing to offer those supports, we are condemning those people. The government is condemning those people to death. To take a positive action and offer them suicide in place of help and treatment, well, we can take a look at a thesaurus and decide whether or not that is to be described as the government killing them, but it is not reaching out a hand in help, and that is exactly what government should do.

93 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/15/24 11:22:56 a.m.
Watch

I am still looking into what was said a while ago, but I do want to remind members to be very careful with some of the wording they are using because it is not quite proper to be using that type of language in the House. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Joliette has the floor.

56 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Feb/15/24 11:23:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would first like to ask for unanimous consent to share my time with my colleague and friend, the member for Montcalm, who is a leading expert on this subject.

32 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/15/24 11:23:43 a.m.
Watch

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to share his time? Some hon. members: Agreed.

15 words