Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today in a very unusual position. It is not every day that I find myself compelled to speak about ill-conceived and objectively shortsighted legislation while committing not to stand in the way of its passage. But in this case, the government has tied our hands, as the alternative to the passage of Bill C-39 is much more dire.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today in a very unusual position. It is not every day that I find myself compelled to speak about ill-conceived and objectively shortsighted legislation while committing not to stand in the way of its passage. But in this case, the government has tied our hands, as the alternative to the passage of Bill C-39 is much more dire.

As Senator Manning said in his eloquent, emotional speech, we disagree with each other, but I respect everyone’s opinions in this chamber even though they may be different than mine. I respect my colleague Senator Kutcher and his opinion, but I do want to make a few comments about what I find very troubling about his comments a few minutes ago.

Suicide is the act of intentionally causing one’s own death. We can call suicide by something else, but it is suicide. If somebody intentionally chooses to take his or her own life, even if they solicit the help of somebody, let’s at least call it what it is.

When the good senator says that somebody who is suicidal will not be given access to suicide — when we are, in fact, passing a bill that does exactly that — I find that mind-boggling because calling it MAID is still not taking away from the fact that one is intentionally causing one’s own death and, in this case, soliciting the help of someone.

I want to make it clear at the outset, for anyone listening, that allowing this bill to pass should not in any way be interpreted as an endorsement for the legalization of assisted suicide for mental illness. Quite the contrary. If this bill does not pass on March 17 — that’s next week, colleagues — Canadians suffering from mental illness as the sole underlying condition will be eligible to end their lives with the assistance of a medical professional.

While I believe that the Liberal government should be abandoning this dangerous expansion altogether, those of us who remain steadfast in our opposition will take advantage of this delay and continue to fight for the many vulnerable Canadians struggling with mental illness, trying to keep them alive.

Two years ago, at third reading of Bill C-7, an amendment was moved in this chamber to remove the exclusion of mental illness for eligibility, with a sunset clause of 18 months. The government, shockingly, accepted this amendment but proposed a new arbitrary expiry date of 24 months, therefore bringing us to March 17, 2023.

The government’s endorsement of this amendment came after Minister Lametti stated at our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and at the House of Commons Justice Committee that there is no consensus in the mental health and psychiatric community that could justify moving forward with extending access to those suffering from mental illness at this time. He also correctly stated that it is not a requirement of the Supreme Court decision.

This third reading amendment was accepted without the opportunity for parliamentarians to vet the proposal with expert witnesses and, certainly, without any medical consensus.

Then, after the fact, the government struck up an expert panel not to determine whether implementing assisted suicide for mental illness could be done safely, but rather to establish recommendations on protocols.

As a former president of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, Dr. Sonu Gaind, stated when he testified at the joint parliamentary committee, this is “. . . not how science works.” He pointed out the following:

No drug company is told their sleeping pill will be approved in two years without evidence of effectiveness or safety while being asked to develop instructions in the meantime on how to use the pill. The sunset clause and the federal panel’s mandate are based on less evidence than is required for introducing any sleeping pill.

The sunset clause was sold as a way to allow time to develop standards and safeguards. But this notion has been discredited by many in the psychiatry community, as it ignores the only true safeguard we have in avoiding premature death: irremediability. The government had no interest in studying whether to implement this extremely controversial, life-and-death policy, only in developing a how-to guide.

Late last year, after a number of heartbreaking stories made headlines demonstrating the dangers of our newly expanded regime, the government announced they would be proposing some changes to the law in the new year.

Then, at the eleventh hour, weeks before the expiry of the sunset clause, the government tabled Bill C-39, which proposes a one-year delay.

I cannot help but wonder why, after admitting that a two-year delay was insufficient, they would take the risk of another arbitrary date in the hopes that evidence would suddenly present itself.

Why would advocates of assisted death for mental illness not just remove this expansion entirely and propose this policy later if and when there is evidence to justify doing so? How is the government so certain that there will be sudden clarity on this topic a year from now when the psychiatry community is not convinced we should be moving forward at all?

Colleagues, I will not rehash all of the arguments against assisted suicide for mental illness today, as I spoke at length to this issue in 2021 when the policy was first proposed. However, there is a great deal of new, notable testimony from the special joint parliamentary committee study which raised alarms. I would encourage all colleagues in this chamber to review the work of the committee and note the concerns raised by experts in the field.

For example, the committee heard expert testimony stating that vulnerable and marginalized Canadians are at greater risk of premature death; that psychiatric patients have indicated their intention to stop potentially effective treatments in anticipation of MAID; that sufficient data does not yet exist; and that it currently remains impossible to distinguish between suicidality and assisted suicide requests.

Today, however, I want to highlight the testimony that is fundamental to the discussion at this time, focusing on one key factor: Canada’s entire assisted dying regime, as stipulated by the Supreme Court of Canada, is founded upon the notion that only those suffering from conditions that are grievous and irremediable should be eligible.

Here is what we know from experts about irremediability of mental illness. The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health has concluded:

There is simply not enough evidence available in the mental health field at this time for clinicians to ascertain whether a particular individual has an irremediable mental illness.

(1600)

Dr. John Maher, a clinical psychiatrist and medical ethicist, told the joint parliamentary committee:

Psychiatrists don’t know and can’t know who will get better and live decades of good life. Brain diseases are not liver diseases. If guesswork is good enough for you, it is not good enough for psychiatrists who understand the science and respect our duty to abide by a professional standard of care. You have been systematically misled by discriminatory ideology over clinical reality. Passing a law telling psychiatrists to make impossible predictions doesn’t magically make it possible.

Psychiatrist Dr. Sonu Gaind told the committee:

Those who advocate expanding access to MAID propose mitigating this reality with “safeguards.” This ignores the fact that irremediability is itself the primary safeguard built into the MAID framework, and bypassing it renders all other supposed “safeguards” meaningless.

Dr. Brian Mishara, a clinical psychiatrist and professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal, said in his testimony:

I’m a scientist. The latest Cochrane Review of research on the ability to find some indicator of the future course of a mental illness, either treated or untreated, concluded that we have no specific scientific ways of doing this.

Dr. Mark Sinyor, a psychiatrist and suicide prevention expert, stated:

In short, we are essentially missing all of the necessary scientific evidence to evaluate the safety of physician-assisted death for mental illness. If I had more time, I could list many examples, but let me focus on the fact that there is absolutely no research on the reliability of physician predictions of the irremediability of illness or suffering in psychiatric conditions. To my knowledge, there is not a single study.

Even the Expert Panel on MAID and Mental Illness stated directly in their report:

There is limited knowledge about the long-term prognosis for many conditions, and it is difficult, if not impossible, for clinicians to make accurate predictions about the future for an individual patient.

This is the government’s own expert panel, colleagues, and they have stated outright that it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict irremediability.

While over 85% of Ontario psychiatrists who responded in a recent survey supported assisted suicide in general, less than 30% agree with expanding the law to sole mental illness.

The special commission on MAID established by the Quebec National Assembly, after several months of study, has now recommended not expanding access to assisted dying for people whose only medical issue is a mental disorder.

In October 2020, the Canadian Psychiatric Association surveyed its members, and less than half supported assisted suicide for mental illness.

Where is the general scientific consensus we have been told about?

Colleagues, we do not need to be scientists or psychiatrists to understand the gravity of this policy. As has been alluded to, a recent Angus Reid poll — which studied the attitudes of Canadians when it comes to assisted suicide — found that while Canadians are “generally supportive” of MAID overall, only 3 in 10, or 31%, say they support the concept of assisted suicide for irremediable mental illness.

Each of us knows someone who is afflicted with mental health issues. Most of us are keenly aware of the abysmal state of mental health care in our country. The idea that we would be moving toward a policy that offers them death before they have had an opportunity for acceptable treatment is heartbreaking. It’s a terrible indication of where we are as a society and the value we place on life.

Dr. Mark Sinyor told the joint committee:

. . . if this goes forward, MAID assessors will have no idea how often they are wrong when they make a determination of eligibility in the context of physician-assisted death for sole mental illness. They could be making an error 2% of the time or 95% of the time. That information should be at the forefront of this discussion, yet it is absent altogether.

How many errors are too many, colleagues?

Minister Lametti stated yesterday that if there is any question as to the irremediability of the mental illness, then that person will not receive MAID, full stop.

Senator Kutcher alluded to that in his speech.

Yet, more than half of the psychiatry community maintains it is never possible to ascertain irremediability with mental illness. This is not nearly as cut and dried as the minister is implying, and he knows it.

Senator Kutcher has publicly stated that psychiatrists who object to assisted suicide for mental illness are being paternalistic. At least one of the witnesses at committee found this comment jarring and insulting. Colleagues, imagine telling psychiatrists and other clinicians who have not exhausted all treatment options — who have seen improvements over the long term, and who remain hopeful for their patients — that they are being paternalistic for not wanting to throw in the towel.

Psychiatrist Dr. John Maher objected to this notion, stating at the joint committee:

You said that all psychiatrists in Canada who object to MAID for mental illness are selfish and paternalistic. I’m not sure what purpose that comment served, but I defy literally any psychiatrist to say that this particular patient has an irremediable illness, because you can’t. I have patients who get better after five years, after 10 years and after 15 years. You cannot do it. It’s guesswork. If you’re okay with guesswork, if you’re okay with playing the odds, or if your position is let’s respect autonomy at all costs — if someone wants to die, they can die — call it what it is. It’s facilitated suicide.

Honourable senators, this expansion bypasses the primary safeguards we have against premature death. Yet, somehow, we are supposed to find comfort in a one-year delay. Facilitating the death of mentally ill patients will be as dangerous in 2024 as it would have been next week. There is nothing magic about the date of March 17, 2024, just as there was no significance to the original date. However, allowing Bill C-39 to pass is effectively a vote against the immediate legalization of assisted suicide for mental disorders. We will be taking this opportunity to get it right.

My colleague in the House of Commons the Honourable Ed Fast, Member of Parliament for Abbotsford, has already tabled Bill C-314 which will make clear in the Criminal Code that a mental disorder is not a grievous and irremediable medical condition for which a person could receive medical assistance in dying.

In presenting this bill, the honourable member said that the government is more concerned with “suicide assistance than suicide prevention” and that the priority should be given to providing the social and mental health supports that vulnerable Canadians need.

I want to commend my colleague for his swift and thoughtful action.

Colleagues, we will have an opportunity to get this right when that bill comes before us, as I am hopeful that it will. I personally look forward to supporting that bill every step of the way, and I hope you will join us.

(1610)

I have always said that when it comes to assisted dying, it is a very personal, emotional issue on which reasonable people can disagree.

I do want to take a moment, however, to reflect on the debates we had when assisted dying was first legalized with Bill C-14 and, subsequently, when it was expanded through Bill C-7. Those of us who pointed to other jurisdictions and raised the slippery slope argument were told our concerns were unfounded. We heard it again this afternoon in this chamber. We heard these were logical fallacies and that Canada was taking a careful, cautious approach. We were assured that assisted suicide would be offered in the narrowest and most grievous of circumstances.

Colleagues, look where we are today. While I did believe we were on a dangerous trajectory, I could have never imagined that in just a few short years we would be offering assisted suicide to those living with a disability before we have made even marginal improvements in their quality of living. I could have never imagined that we would be offering assisted suicide to veterans, to those suffering from potentially treatable illnesses.

And now, colleagues, we are seriously talking about offering assisted suicide to children — just a few years after our slippery slope concerns were dismissed. Let us be cognizant of the speed at which we have moved the next time these issues are raised. Let us strongly consider heeding the warnings of international experts who have seen this play out in their jurisdictions.

Every policy decision we make is important, but in this case, the risk we are taking in getting it wrong has tragic life-and-death consequences.

To those listening who are struggling with mental illness or who love someone with mental illness and to those who treat and support them, please know this fight is not over. The work has only begun.

As I said, Bill C-314 has been tabled and will put an end to this reckless expansion. I look forward to continuing the fight in this chamber and I would encourage my colleagues to give the bill due consideration when it comes our way. Thank you.

Senator Plett: Some of —

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, to mimic Senator Manning, I rise today to bring you chapter 3 of “Myla Plett’s Curling Adventures.”

Our story last left off with Myla and Team Plett having won gold at the Alberta Under-18 Girls Curling Championships, the Alberta Under-20 Championship and the Canada Winter Games trials.

This meant that their next stop was the Canadian Under-18 Curling Championship in Timmins, Ontario, which ran from February 5 to February 11 at the McIntyre Curling Club.

The curling club and Curling Canada put on a world-class event, and I’m happy to report that Team Plett went 9-0 to emerge the Canadian Under-18 Girls Curling champions for the second straight year.

Colleagues, the most difficult team they faced in Timmins was the Nova Scotia team, where they were forced into an extra end in order to break a tie. As it turned out, Team Plett would soon face this same team once again at the Canada Winter Games.

This year, the games were held in Prince Edward Island from February 19 to March 4, which my wife Betty and I had the privilege of attending.

Upon our arrival in Charlottetown, and at the opening ceremonies, we received a great reception from Premier Dennis King and the people of P.E.I., where all 3,600 athletes, coaches and support staff, along with the thousands of visitors, were designated as honorary Islanders for the entire winter games.

And throughout the week, Betty and I were also warmly greeted by Senators Brian Francis, Percy Downe and Stan Kutcher, along with our former colleague Senator Diane Griffin, who made us feel very much at home as they hosted us at different lunches and dinners.

Colleagues, what a week of curling it was. Finishing the round robin tied with Nova Scotia — with identical 4-1 records — Team Plett won their quarter-final and semifinal games. Then, they found themselves, once again, pitted against the same team from Nova Scotia in the final. Nova Scotia played an outstanding game, besting us in the final and clinching the gold medal — with Team Plett winning the silver.

I want to offer my sincere congratulations to the Nova Scotia girls’ team consisting of Sophie Blades as skip, Kate Weissent as third, Stephanie Atherton as second and Alexis Cluney as lead. They fought hard for their gold medal and should be proud of their performance.

On a side note, the Nova Scotia boys also won the gold medal. To my granddaughter Myla Plett and her teammates, Alyssa Nedohin, Chloe Fediuk and Allie Iskiw, congratulations on your silver medal. You once again demonstrated excellent sportsmanship and continue to make us proud. I know that all my Senate colleagues will be waiting with bated breath for chapter 4 of this series, when I update them on your success at the Canadian under-21 curling championships in Quebec at the end of March.

Colleagues, I invite you to join me in congratulating all of the athletes who competed at the prestigious Winter Games in Prince Edward Island and wish them well in their continued training as they pursue excellence in their chosen sport. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, why is the Prime Minister completely incapable of coming clean with Canadians and telling us the truth? Whether it is reporters or parliamentarians, no one is getting a straight answer from him. Global News reports that the foreign intelligence assessment branch of the Prime Minister’s own department, leader, the Privy Council Office, prepared a special report in January 2022 intended for the Prime Minister and senior PMO staff. It stated:

A large clandestine transfer of funds earmarked for the federal election from the PRC Consulate in Toronto was transferred to an elected provincial government official via a staff member of a 2019 federal candidate.

Yesterday, in the other place, the Prime Minister was asked repeatedly about this. He did everything but answer the questions. Why not, leader? Why can he not come out and tell us the truth?

Senator Plett: Well, of course, my question was why didn’t he answer the questions not what is he doing on the side, but you mentioned the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP. Another document provided to Global News was an unredacted copy of an August 2019 report prepared by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.

This committee reports directly to the Prime Minister, and he and his office approve redactions or edits to their reports before they are made public. By the way, leader, this is a committee that the Prime Minister has been bragging about that all registered, recognized parties are part of. Ironically, he is failing to appoint somebody from the official opposition in the Senate to that committee but appoints supposedly independent senators and not somebody from the Conservative Party of Canada.

I am curious about that, leader, why is that not happening?

My question is — and I will continue with this — Global News says that this report:

. . . offered several examples of alleged Chinese election interference from 2015 to 2018 that involved the targeting and funding of candidates.

The Prime Minister would have seen this report, leader. He saw it and did nothing about it. I have to wonder if he wants the leaks of both this report and the Privy Council Office, or PCO, report investigated the same way that he wants the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, whistle-blowers hunted down.

Leader, you said this committee would get to the bottom of this in a responsible and prudent way. Maybe we need to have a Conservative on the committee from the Senate. That might help us.

How is a secret committee whose reports the Prime Minister already ignores going to do that?