SoVote

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

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Feb/15/24 4:12:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-62

Mr. Speaker, as we debate here and keep hearing the words, which we are now getting used to, “medical assistance in dying”, in the context of Bill C-62, I wonder whether we can create something different, like “societal assistance in living”. We desperately need things like a guaranteed livable income. We need better access to social supports, mental health provisions, addictions counselling and a panoply of things that would make us feel more confident that no one would opt for medical assistance in dying. If Canada, if we as neighbours and friends to the family of all Canadians, said that we are there for them and that they can count on something, a guarantee, social assistance in living, would the hon. member think that is a good idea?

133 words

Mr. Marcus Powlowski

Feb/15/24 4:13:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely support that. What a humane society does when someone who is suffering comes before it is that it tries to help them. Maybe that means better psychiatric care, but maybe it means addressing their socio-economic problems. Certainly I do not think that a humane society's first response to that person ought to be to offer them death. That is an absolute failure and a solution of an inhumane society. We ought to be helping people who are suffering, not ending their lives.

88 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Feb/15/24 4:13:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-7 Bill C-14

Mr. Speaker, we have heard that a lot in this debate. We all want to be on the side of the angels. We all want to improve socio-economic conditions. The expert report does take structural vulnerabilities into account, and no assessor is authorized to grant a request for medical assistance in dying if there is any possibility that the request came about because of a structural vulnerability. I paid close attention to my colleague's speech. Judging from the examples he gave, I gather he was in favour of Bill C‑14 for cases involving reasonably foreseeable death, but that he is against Bill C‑7 for people suffering from an incurable degenerative disease who are forced to cut their life short by suicide because their suffering has become intolerable. If Bill C‑7 is implemented, those people will be able to live until they reach the threshold of what they feel is tolerable. Did I understand correctly that my colleague is against Bill C‑7 as it relates to degenerative diseases? I am curious, and I would like him to answer this question. He talked about it in his speech.

197 words

Mr. Marcus Powlowski

Feb/15/24 4:15:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am not against MAID for physical illnesses. That is a totally different situation. The problem with MAID for mental illness is the inability to determine who is not going to get better. The unfortunate reality is that there are a lot of doctors who have a very cavalier attitude toward taking someone's life, and that there are people who could or would get better with a little time and with better treatment who would otherwise have their lives foreshortened by one of these zealous practitioners. Certainly it is very different from, for example, the Carter situation, or someone who has ALS and is terminally ill with a neurodegenerative disease. That is a totally different story, and in those cases I certainly approve of MAID if that is what the person wants.

135 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/15/24 4:15:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the comment that my colleague just made, that essentially there are instances of zealous practitioners who may be going very far in terms of determining that someone is eligible when they should not be. Part of the problem with the euthanasia regime we have is that it allows doctor shopping. It allows somebody to find two doctors who may not be representative at all and may not be the attending physician, and asking them, “Would you sign this, please?” They may get approved even if they should not meet the criteria. Conservatives proposed in the last election platform that we should require MAID assessors to complete MAID assessor training to ensure full awareness of and compliance with the laws and best practices around MAID. Would the member be supportive of the proposal that we put forward to have specific MAID assessor training to try to have more consistency and less arbitrariness and fewer instances of people shopping around?

167 words

Mr. Marcus Powlowski

Feb/15/24 4:16:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would approve of that. However, as a medical practitioner, I would not volunteer to become a MAID practitioner. If this position is going to be created, the only people who are going to take on the job are people who believe in MAID, believe that it is all about personal autonomy and believe that it is not for others to question a person's suffering. Whatever they are going to be taught, a lot of them are going to be the kind of people who do have a cavalier attitude toward taking life. Those of us who disagree with it are not going to accept the position to begin with.

113 words

Mr. Gerald Soroka (Yellowhead, CPC)

Feb/15/24 4:17:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-62

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge. Bill C-62, no. 2, suggests that we pause the expansion of medical assistance in dying, known as MAID, to people suffering from mental illness. The Liberals have shown time and again that they consistently pass legislation without the careful consideration needed for such significant changes to our society. This discussion is not just legislative; it is about how we value human life and the impact of the government's choices on all Canadians. In thinking about extending MAID to include mental illness, there is a need for a deep understanding of the complexities and uncertainties in diagnosing and predicting mental health outcomes. Evidence to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying showed a worrying truth: Clinicians often struggle to predict whether mental health conditions are irremediable, and they have a 50% chance of being wrong. This alarming fact points to a big problem with the proposed expansion; this is the chance of making permanent choices based on uncertain medical opinions. Mental health involves biological, psychological and social elements. Recovery is not always straightforward, and what seems irremediable at one point may improve with treatment. Basing MAID on the idea that a mental illness cannot be cured shows a misunderstanding of the changing nature of mental health recovery. As the member for St. Albert—Edmonton put it, it is like flipping a coin on matters of life and death, a practice that is ethically troubling and goes against the idea of patient-focused care. Moreover, we cannot discuss MAID and mental illness without considering the wider issues of access to quality mental health care in Canada. When people such as Canadian Paralympian and veteran Christine Gauthier are offered MAID from the government when simply requesting help with a wheelchair lift, it shows a worrying trend of suggesting MAID as a fix for systemic failures to providing proper care and support for those with disabilities and chronic conditions. This is not just one case. It reflects a larger problem, wherein essential services and supports are lacking; this drives people to consider MAID not because they want to but because they feel neglected by the Liberal government. The risks of broadening MAID to include mental illness alone are complex, going beyond clinical doubts to wider social and ethical issues. It makes us question our dedication to mental health care, the value we place on lives touched by mental illness, and the kind of society we want to have. Do we face challenges with empathy, support and a commitment to better care, or do we settle for solutions that ignore the struggles Canadians face? The Liberal government's approach to expanding MAID shows a wider trend of hasty law-making that leads to policies being introduced, then pulled back or changed after facing reality and public criticism. From errors in firearms legislation to heated debates on the carbon tax, the government often acts first and thinks later. This not only damages our law-making process but also lowers public trust in our ability to govern wisely and carefully. The rush to include mental illness in MAID, without proper evidence or full discussions with mental health experts, ethicists and affected groups, shows a lack of regard for the careful and expert-led discussions that such a major policy change requires. The need to pause and rethink this expansion, via the bill, is an admission that the government's actions have been rash and poorly thought out. This legislative step back, marked by two delays in implementation, is not just a minor issue; it is a clear sign of the dangers of choosing political speed over solid, evidence-based policy-making. It raises serious doubts about the government's commitment to responsible governance, which includes the need to fully explore, understand and foresee the effects of laws before they are passed. In this critical discussion on MAID, we must also consider the perspective of those directly affected by such policies. The voices of individuals and families living with mental illness must be central to our legislative process. Their experiences and insights can provide invaluable guidance as we navigate the complexities of this issue. By engaging with these communities, we can ensure that our laws reflect the realities of those they impact most and uphold the principles of empathy and inclusion. Furthermore, the debate on MAID expansion underscores the need for comprehensive mental health services. The government must prioritize the enhancement of mental health care infrastructure, ensuring that all Canadians have access to the support and treatment they require. By strengthening our mental health care system, we can address the root causes of despair and hopelessness that lead individuals to consider MAID, thereby affirming our commitment to life and well-being. This moment also calls for a re-evaluation of our societal values and the role of government in safeguarding the dignity of every citizen. As policymakers, we have a duty to foster a culture that values every life, provides hope through support and resources, and respects the autonomy of individuals while carefully considering the ethical implications of life-ending interventions. This approach would not only address the immediate concerns surrounding MAID but would also contribute to a more compassionate and just society. As we think about what this pause means, we must consider the lessons learned and push for a more thoughtful, consultative and evidence-based approach to making laws. The stakes are too high, and the chance for unintended harm too great, to accept anything less. In MAID's case, where ethics, law and personal choice intersect delicately, our responsibility to be extremely careful and considerate cannot be overstated. The proposal for a pause on MAID's expansion clearly shows that the Liberal government's policy-making has been quick and poorly thought out. While this pause is needed, it points to a bigger issue of governance, where major legislative changes are made without enough foresight, discussion or understanding of the deep ethical implications. This pause reminds us of the dangers of enacting laws that deeply affect Canadians' lives and well-being, especially the most vulnerable. It shows the current Liberal government's failure to engage in a careful, evidence-based legislative process, preferring instead policies that match ideological aims rather than the complex realities of issues such as MAID and mental health. This should be more than a brief stop; it should be a crucial time to rethink how policies, especially those about life and death, are made and applied. It questions the government's commitment to maintaining the highest standards of care, empathy and respect for all Canadians' dignity. We must demand greater legislative care and ethical responsibility from the government. The discussion on MAID and mental illness needs a comprehensive approach that puts individuals' well-being and rights ahead of quick political gains. It is time for a move towards more responsible governance, where policies are made with great care, are based on wide consultation, and reflect our collective values and ethical standards. Sadly, the current Liberal government seems to lack concern for any of these values. The way forward should be marked by a dedication to thorough research, wide involvement and a deep respect for life's sanctity. Only by such a comprehensive approach can we ensure our legislative actions truly serve all Canadians, embodying the justice, empathy and respect that define our nation.

1244 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/15/24 4:27:11 p.m.
Watch

The member for Mirabel on a point of order.

9 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Feb/15/24 4:27:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are debating an extremely important issue and it does not seem as though we have quorum. I would like to request a count, please.

27 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/15/24 4:27:26 p.m.
Watch

Okay. We will count the members. And the count having been taken: The Deputy Speaker: It is okay. We have quorum. The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

28 words

Mr. Gerald Soroka

Feb/15/24 4:28:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that this has been one of my big things. Even when I was a mayor, I talked about the mental health of Canadians. We can solve a lot of societal problems if we have a better handle on mental health. In order to do that, we have to fund appropriately and properly. One of the big challenges, when we start looking at mental health, is that it is probably going to take at least a 20-year period before we start seeing some real benefits to society. Unfortunately, governments are only elected every four years; therefore, they are not willing to put in the real money that is needed. They often use a band-aid approach. We need to start looking at a long-range plan to enhance and assist our mental health in Canada.

141 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Feb/15/24 4:29:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we often hear the argument that investments must be made in mental health to prevent mental illness and severe mental disorders. I did not hear his leader say that he was going to put more on the table in terms of health transfers. Will the Conservatives propose a substantial increase in health transfers?

55 words

Mr. Gerald Soroka

Feb/15/24 4:30:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is a big misconception in this House about the opposition. We are not going to come forward and start laying out our plan for the next election, as to everything we are going to do. Believe it or not, the Liberals would steal everything we are proposing. That is why, I have to admit, we are not going to lay everything out.

65 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Feb/15/24 4:30:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if I understand this correctly, from what I just heard, the most important thing for this member is political opportunity and gain, not to advance the best interests of Canadians. I have news for that member. He was not elected to come here and spend—

48 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Feb/15/24 4:31:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member opposite is, of course, breaking a number of rules all at once, as he does. He is far afield of the topic, number one. Number two—

38 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/15/24 4:31:30 p.m.
Watch

That sounds like debate. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

12 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/15/24 4:31:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, he was not elected to come here and then develop plans for four years to run on four years later. He was elected by his constituents to come here and try to put forward policies to make their lives better. The idea, when members are in opposition, is not to just stay there and do absolutely nothing, hoping that they get a turn to be on this side of the House. What they need to do is actually start trying to influence policy and make it better. Can the member not understand that?

95 words

Mr. Gerald Soroka

Feb/15/24 4:32:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that very delusional member does not understand what the role of the government is. It is to make sure that the government provides what Canadians need and want. Unfortunately, Canadians are finding that the Liberal government is failing on so many fronts. That is why the member is being desperate tonight and is trying to say that it is our problem, not theirs. Members can trust me: When we form government, we will fix a lot of the issues that the Liberal government has put upon Canadians. During our election, we will allow everything to come out in our platform. I look forward to releasing that when there is an election in the future.

116 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Feb/15/24 4:32:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I for one cannot wait for the next election. I hope it comes sooner rather than later. On the important subject here, with respect to the postponement of this legislation, postponing medical assistance in dying for mental health-related issues for three years, does the member believe that it should be stopped permanently?

55 words

Mr. Gerald Soroka

Feb/15/24 4:33:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is a very big concern when we are dealing with mental health. How do we determine that someone who has a mental health condition is in a stable mental health state and make sure they understand everything they are doing? This is not like someone going to buy a vehicle who is not sure they really like the colour or whatever else. This is something that is irremediable. Definitely, we need to reexamine this and make sure we have a logical approach to mental health.

88 words