SoVote

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

Feb/15/24 12:34:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that rural and remote communities, including indigenous peoples, have difficulty accessing the quality health care that many of us in urban centres take for granted. I also agree with the member that we need to look beyond the formal structure that is currently available in identifying the people with knowledge who can provide health care services. We should see whether we can bring people with the knowledge and expertise in traditional medicine or the various other knowledge systems available around the world into the system, where their knowledge and experience would be available not only to indigenous peoples but to all Canadians.

110 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Feb/15/24 12:35:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I served on the special joint committee on MAID, and the overwhelming evidence from experts, including leading psychiatrists, is that there are fundamental political problems with MAID in cases where mental illness is the sole underlying condition. This includes the difficulty in predicting irremediability and in distinguishing a request that is rational from one motivated by suicidal ideation. What evidence can the member cite to indicate that these fundamental political problems will be resolved in three short years?

80 words

Mr. Chandra Arya

Feb/15/24 12:36:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, especially on issues on which highly qualified experts and professionals are giving their opinions, sometimes it may not be possible for everyone in the room to agree on the right answer. That is why the government has invested in consultation. The bill did not come up on its own. It is not just an outcome of the thought process of some bureaucrats sitting in a government building here; it also includes a lot of consultations with Canadians, health care professionals and other experts. Their inputs have also been taken into consideration when formulating the legislation.

97 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Feb/15/24 12:37:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a survey released two weeks ago from the Ontario Psychiatric Association indicates that 78% of Ontario's psychiatrists oppose the expansion and do not believe that there are sufficient safeguards. Can the hon. member speak to the government's decision not to add additional safeguards, and would he support additional legislative safeguards pursuant to the Criminal Code if in fact we move ahead with this in three years?

70 words

Mr. Chandra Arya

Feb/15/24 12:37:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the short answer would be what I always say, which is that whenever we bring in legislation that fundamentally affects all Canadians, especially the kind of legislation that has never been thought of during the last 155 years, we need to take a real look at it, modify it and change it if required. I am sure there will be a time in the future when we can have a real look at the whole MAID legislation to see whether we can tweak it to better serve Canadians.

90 words

Hon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC)

Feb/15/24 12:38:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-7 Bill C-62 Bill C-39

Madam Speaker, Canadians would be forgiven for thinking they have seen this movie before, because they have. It was only last year that we debated Bill C-39, which provided an extension of the coming into force of this dangerous legislation. Now we are debating Bill C-62, which was introduced two weeks ago thanks to consistent pressure from Conservatives, advocates, experts, organizations and individuals from across the country who want to help individuals live with mental illness, not help them end their lives. How did we get here? We got here because we have a justice minister, a Prime Minister and a government that have ignored the science, the legal experts, the courts and the pleas of the most vulnerable. They have ignored Canadians. They have plowed ahead with legislation to expand medical assistance in dying to Canadians who deserve help, Canadians who are suffering from mental illness. I do not need to tell the House about some of the shocking headlines we have seen over the last year. Veterans suffering with PTSD are being told by employees of Veterans Affairs that they could consider MAID. Individuals without housing are considering MAID for economic reasons. Individuals, as we heard at our justice committee when we studied Bill C-7, who did not wish to have MAID were consistently pressured to considered it. On this side of the aisle, Conservatives have chosen the path of hope rather than harm, and we will continue to do so, but across the way, just this week, we heard a government minister say it is not a matter of if this expansion takes place; it is a matter of when. I mentioned ignoring the law. When we were at the justice committee studying Bill C-7, we consistently heard the government say that we have to do this because the courts told us we have to. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, there was a court decision, which the government did not appeal. That decision in no way directed the full expansion of accessibility to MAID to those suffering from mental illness. In fact, it was not in the original legislation. What happened with Bill C-7, which we studied at justice committee, in no way, shape or form involved expansion of MAID to those suffering from mental illness. However, when the bill got to the unelected Senate, it was amended to include this provision, which we had not even studied. The minister at the time assured us his bill was charter-compliant. The previous justice minister was at committee. I am holding today a letter signed by 32 leading experts on the law, professors from faculties of law around the country. The letter says, “We disagree as law professors that providing access to MAID for persons whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness,” which is what we are talking about today, “is constitutionally required, and that Carter...created or confirmed a constitutional right to suicide, as [the Minister of Justice] has repeatedly stated. Our Supreme Court has never confirmed that there is a broad constitutional right to obtain help with suicide via health-care provider ending-of-life.” Those are powerful words. If I had time, I would read the names of the 32 professors who signed the letter. People would recognize many of them. They would certainly recognize the different universities they represent. With the letter in hand, I said to the minister of justice, “Minister, you have come here saying that, constitutionally, you have to do this, but these 32 experts are saying you do not. Who is right, you or these experts?". The minister said, “I'm right.” That is the attitude we have seen consistently with the government as it has plowed ahead in spite of the evidence, in spite of the concerns and in spite of the pleas from disability groups, mental health experts and psychiatrists. I have a brief from the Society of Canadian Psychiatry, which makes a number of conclusions. I do not have time to read them all, but I want to touch on a couple of the conclusions: At this time, it is impossible to predict in any legitimate way that mental illness in individual cases is irremediable. A significant number of individuals receiving MAID for sole mental illness would have improved and recovered. This is a finding of the Society of Canadian Psychiatry. I have already spoken about this a bit, but even they can see this. They go on to say: The political process leading to the planned expansion of MAID for mental illness has not followed a robust and fulsome process, has not reflected the range of opinions and evidence-based concerns on the issue, and has been selectively guided by expansion activists. If that does not send a shiver down one's spine, I do not know what would. When we are talking about Canadians at their most vulnerable place, they should be able to count on us. How many of us participate in, for example, Bell Let's Talk Day every year? We say to people, if they are suffering with mental illness, to reach out, that we are here to help and that they should talk to someone they trust and access mental health support. Now, in spite of all this, we have psychiatrists saying the government is moving in the wrong direction. I turn to their recommendations: The Board of the Society of Canadian Psychiatry recommends that the planned 2024 MAID for mental illness expansion be paused— It's not for a year, not for three years and not for five years, but: —indefinitely, without qualification and presupposition that such implementation can safely be introduced at any arbitrary pre-determined date. What are we led to believe when a government will not listen to legal experts when it comes to the criminal law and will not listen to psychiatrists when it comes to mental illness? It begs the question of who it is listening to and why. This is the second time, and Conservatives have warned all along that there would be a dangerous, slippery slope. Canada has leapt ahead of all other nations. Some nations were ahead of the curve on this compared to Canada. Now they look at us and ask what happened that we would even be discussing providing assisted death to someone who comes to Veterans Affairs or to one of the number of hospitals across our country, looking for help, and instead is offered medical assistance in dying. I want to set the record straight that the Liberal government has not, in any way, been bound by the courts to expand MAID to those whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. This was a path it chose to take. We need to take this time to reflect on that path, to turn back and to give people hope. We all know individuals who have been touched by mental illness in the health care system. We know the wait times can be extraordinary for people to get help. We also know the government has contributed to those wait times. After eight years, people are suffering. I would urge members to support this bill and then to look at ways to provide support for those suffering with mental illness, not to offer them assistance in death. I move: That the question be now put.

1244 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/15/24 12:49:01 p.m.
Watch

The motion is in order. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

16 words

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

Feb/15/24 12:49:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on something my colleague pointed out that people in Canada really need to understand. Because the federal government failed to challenge the Truchon decision, the legislation came back to the House. Parliament went through it, and it was to be approved in the Senate, yet unaccountable, unelected people in the Senate who did no due diligence decided arbitrarily that they would expand MAID to include people who were desperate, isolated and alone with mental illness. They threw it back to the House without any work being done, and the Liberals accepted it. Now we are scrambling, 30 days away from the deadline. I would ask my hon. colleague what it says about the fundamental failings of democracy that unelected, unaccountable people in the Senate, who cannot even be fired, could make such a profound change in legislation that would affect so many lives without any oversight, due to a failure of the government to say they are way over the line, this is not their purview and this is the work that Parliament does.

181 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/15/24 12:50:25 p.m.
Watch

It has happened a couple of times today that members of the Senate have been mentioned or adjectives have been used regarding the Senate. I want to remind members that the House rules say that no member shall use offensive words against either House or any member thereof. Members should be careful with the words they are using and not mention members from the other House directly, because they are not here to defend themselves.

75 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Feb/15/24 12:51:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very concerned that you are rewriting rules in Parliament. Is the issue that I used the word “unelected”? Is that not parliamentary? Is “unaccountable” not parliamentary? It has been used in the House.

41 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/15/24 12:51:29 p.m.
Watch

We need to be very careful with the words we use. We should ensure that we are not causing disorder. The comments being made are on both sides of the House, and I would ask members to please be careful with the words they use. The hon. member for Abbotsford.

50 words

Hon. Ed Fast

Feb/15/24 12:52:11 p.m.
Watch

On the same point, Madam Speaker, I would ask that you get clarity on this and come back to the House. I do not believe the terms “unelected” and “unaccountable” are offensive. They are appropriate, because they reflect the fact that the Senate is not elected. If it is a matter of naming senators, that may be a different issue, but using terms that most of us would acknowledge accurately reflect what the Senate represents is fair, especially in this chamber, where we are supposed to be free to express our thoughts and feelings about the issues of the day.

104 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/15/24 12:52:48 p.m.
Watch

I will read part of the ruling that was given in the House not that long ago. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, has the following, on page 620: Although the Chair has been known to show considerable leeway at times in recent years, it is generally understood that disrespectful reflections on Parliament as a whole, or on the House or the Senate individually, are not permitted...and it is out of order to question a Senator’s integrity I would again ask members to please be mindful of that.

93 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Feb/15/24 12:53:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would ask you to review the debates today, which I think have been very respectful. You mentioned disorder. Did anyone speaking about unelected or unaccountable senators cause disorder where it was raised? You are putting yourself in a discussion where I think there has been very respectful conversation. Talking about the fundamental problem with the other House is germane to the issue at hand. It is why we are here today. It is why this debate has to happen. If we cannot talk about that, then we are not doing our job for Canadians.

97 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/15/24 12:54:09 p.m.
Watch

I appreciate the additional input. I will certainly look further into this and get back to the House, if need be. Earlier today the hon. member used some adjectives that were not becoming of the language that should be used when it comes to specific senators, so I would ask him and all members to please refrain from doing so.

60 words

Mr. Dan Albas

Feb/15/24 12:54:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened to our critic for justice. He has done yeoman service on committee and in this place on this subject, and I know it is very dear to him—

33 words

Mrs. Carol Hughes

Feb/15/24 12:54:56 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

15 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Feb/15/24 12:54:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I asked a question. I think I should be allowed to have an answer, even if I mentioned unelected and unaccountable senators. I should not be denied an answer from my colleague.

34 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/15/24 12:55:09 p.m.
Watch

I apologize for that. I jumped one step there.

9 words

Hon. Rob Moore

Feb/15/24 12:55:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-7

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is quite right. The government and the minister have been all too eager to lose. When they had a constitutional responsibility to defend their laws, they did not appeal decisions that would protect vulnerable Canadians, and when the then minister appeared at the justice committee on Bill C-7, which expanded medical assistance in dying, he assured us it was quite constitutional. Then, the next day, he was back, assuring us that without the expansion to those suffering from mental illness, it would be unconstitutional, so this was a minister who was all too eager to lead his government, and the government members did not stand up and push back. Now we are in the situation we are in. We have already extended the coming into force for a year, and now we are debating a bill to extend it by three years. That is a clear indication that the government got it wrong, and we are going to do what needs to be done to protect Canadians.

173 words