SoVote

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

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

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

Feb/15/24 4:33:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today's debate concerns extending the pause for assisted death for people with mental illness and disabilities as the sole underlying condition. The Liberals' original bill last year included this expansion. However, public and professional backlash toward their measures caused them to hold back for one year. That deadline is fast approaching. The one-year extension expires in March, at which time MAID will be accessible to very vulnerable people unless there is a change in legislation. This expansion is terrible legislation for Canadians, but it is on par for the Liberal-NDP government. As someone who has taught Canadian history, I am sorry to say that I cannot think of a worse government in Canadian history. Why does the Liberal government pursue such harmful policies across the board? The Liberal environmental plan is a war against our natural resource sector, which is the foundation of Canadians' wealth and prosperity and provides the finances for health care, infrastructure and services that are important to Canadians. The Liberal catch-and-release policies have unleashed crime and chaos in our cities. Their soft-on-drugs approach has resulted in 40,000 overdose deaths. Record numbers of people died last year in B.C., some of whom I knew. However, today we are debating Canada’s MAID regime under the Liberals and NDP. The number of people who died from MAID in 2022 amounts to 4.1% of all deaths in Canada. Canada is second only to the Netherlands, which implemented MAID in 2002. Euthanasia became legal in Canada in 2016. Compare the number of Canadians who died by MAID in 2022, the last statistic I am aware of, which is 13,241 people, with the number in California, which has a population similar to Canada's of 40 million, and which implemented MAID in 2016 also. They had 853 deaths. That is quite a discrepancy. Is that because suddenly, or maybe not so suddenly, the government has been promoting it? I think of Canadian Forces veteran, Christine Gauthier, a five-time world champion at the paralympics, who testified that when she requested help from the Department of Veterans Affairs, she was offered MAID. They wrote a letter to her, saying that if she was so desperate for help, they could offer her MAID. I think that is disgraceful and incomprehensible. Six other veterans that we are aware of were also offered medically assisted death. Those are the ones we know of. It is easier in Canada to get MAID than it is to get palliative care. That is disgraceful. It is easier to get MAID in Canada, and the wait time is less, than to get psychiatric help. That is disgraceful. It is easier to get MAID than to get supports. Andrew Robbins from Hamilton told The Globe and Mail that he was seeking medically assisted death to escape the cycle of poverty and health problems. Under the NDP-Liberal government everything is getting more expensive. People are struggling to pay their rent, pay for gas and pay for groceries. He stated, “I know one thing. I would be better off dead than on the streets. My wife would be better off too.” That is a shame. The bill before us delays the implementation of MAID being extended to people with mental illness and those with disabilities who are not facing imminent death. Over 200 organizations representing persons with disabilities across Canada actively opposed and urged the government to appeal this decision. Not a single national disabilities rights organization expressed support for the repeal of RFND, or reasonably foreseeable natural death. They say that MAID for people with disabilities stigmatizes and dehumanizes persons with disabilities and the international human rights obligations. United Nations representatives also agree. This legislation is so contrary to what our country has stood for. I think of B.C. native Rick Hansen, a paraplegic who did the Man in Motion World Tour in a wheelchair. His message is, “You can do it. You can be productive in spite of your disabilities. You can enjoy a full life despite these challenges.” Terry Fox, also from British Columbia, lost his leg to cancer. He decided to run across Canada for cancer research. He had to stop in Thunder Bay, because the cancer had returned, but still the Terry Fox Run continues and has raised hundreds of millions of dollars. He is a national hero. He is an inspiration not to give up. Then there is Nicholas James Vujicic. He is not a Canadian, but he was born with a rare disease and without arms and legs. He has only a six-inch foot coming out of his torso. He founded an organization called Life Without Limbs. He has spoken to millions of people and is very inspirational, saying that no matter our circumstances, we have something to give and to live for in helping others. This is the message we should be promoting, especially to people who have become disabled. I am disturbed that the Liberals merely want to postpone this legislation, which would open wide the door for people still struggling with mental illnesses to access medically assisted death. The chairs of psychiatry for all of Canada's 17 medical schools called on the Liberals to hold off. They say it is extremely difficult to predict whether a person will get better or will recover, as my colleague mentioned, and that physicians get it wrong 50% of the time. As my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton said, it is like flipping a coin with people's lives. Suicidal thoughts are often a symptom of mental disorders, and it is hard to distinguish between the two. People can get better with supports, and a great many do. In the early 1980s, I went through a clinical depression. It was a very dark and painful time, and suicidal thoughts bombarded me. I had medical care, and I had friends with me, and I totally recovered. Now it is only a distant memory, and all the pain, all the despair and all the darkness have faded, so there is hope. Most people with opioid addictions also struggle with mental illness. Is this the direction the government is prepared to take us in? It seems sinister. Liberals and the NDP provide addicts free hard drugs. There is a high likelihood that this will kill them sooner or later, as we are seeing from statistics, but if they do not like their life as an addict, in three years, if we have a Liberal government, state-sanctioned suicide could be available to them. Conservatives believe in supporting the most vulnerable. We believe in treatment and recovery and not safe injection sites. We believe in palliative care at the end of life and supports for our most vulnerable. The member for Cariboo—Prince George initiated the 811 suicide prevention line. Finally, Conservatives believe that this bill, which would expand MAID to people with disabilities, needs to be struck down, because it could be brought back in three years.

1182 words

Mr. Todd Doherty

Feb/15/24 4:43:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to correct my hon. colleague. I note, in his zest for this intervention, he misread the number. It is not 811; it is 988.

34 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/15/24 4:44:02 p.m.
Watch

It is not a point of order, but it was a good clarification.

13 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Feb/15/24 4:44:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago that “made in Canada” was a phrase we were proud of. We have teenagers who, sometimes for the very first time in their lives, are encountering adversity. It is a psychological crisis to them. They react in such a way that they are actually trying to commit suicide. It is often said that an attempt at suicide is a cry for help. They end up in the hospital for a time. We have seen, with veterans, how some of them who seem to be near the end of life have been encouraged to use MAID. Is there anything in this legislation that would explicitly prevent medical workers from suggesting MAID to people who attempt suicide but thankfully are not deceased as a consequence of it?

135 words

Mr. Marc Dalton

Feb/15/24 4:45:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is quite unfortunate, but even under the old regime, there were many people who were not facing imminent death but still received MAID. I believe the Liberal member for Thunder Bay actually talked about some of the zealous doctors who prescribe it. I am aware that this has happened, so to the member's question, there is nothing that I am aware of that would prevent this. The member talked about youth. I have family members who have gone through drug issues and mental health issues and have come out the other side and now are supporting people in a similar situation.

105 words