- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Edmonton Manning
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $109,026.29
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I will ask a question of the hon. member.
She finished on a collaborative tone, as far as working together in this specific area goes. I do not believe any of us would disagree on what we need to do when it comes specifically to Afghanistan. However, my question is about the timing, the 18 months she and many other members referred to in terms of the bill.
How does she see this? Is this a miscalculation by the government or a delay in the calendar? Why has it taken 18 months to see the bill in the House of Commons?
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we have been here before, with the Liberals scrambling to meet a deadline, unable to get their act together. In this case, though, perhaps the delay will provide us with the opportunity to get things right, or at least, that is my hope.
The question that we need to ask here is not whether there should be a delay in when medical assistance in dying is extended to the mentally ill, but whether such an expansion is a wise move at all.
Seven years ago, I stood in the House and predicted that we would be here today. On May 5, 2016, I said:
It does not take much talent to predict that in the aftermath of this legislation there will be confusion.
However, if killing patients becomes an option, for whatever supposedly good reason, how long will it be before that reason becomes more flexible than rigid? What about those with no family who are a drain on hospital resources? Would it not be in the financial best interests of society to end their lives?
How are we going to prevent families from pressuring their aged ones, urging them to request death so that the next generation of the family will be financially better off? There are so many issues that are still unresolved. We are acting in haste, and it seems to be almost guaranteed that we will get it wrong....
We might not be discussing this issue if we were doing a better job as a nation in assisting those approaching the end of their natural life. Where is the commitment of the government to increase funding for palliative care, which was an election promise unfulfilled in budget 2016?
I did not, at that time, address the issue of so-called assistance in dying for those who are mentally ill. I confess that, at that time, it never occurred to me that such an idea would be considered.
We were talking about those whose deaths were not only foreseen but imminent. The idea of hastening natural death was put forward as something compassionate, to ease the pain of those suffering from terminal illness.
How quickly times have changed. What was once unthinkable is now being promoted as normal, which may explain why, in October of last year, a representative of the Quebec college of physicians suggested that MAID be extended to infants under the age of one with serious health conditions. These children are obviously too young to make such a decision themselves.
It was somewhat reassuring to hear the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion say that she was shocked by the suggestion and found it unacceptable. It was less reassuring when the minister also said that she could not speak on behalf of the entire government on the issue, which means that I would not be surprised if, in the not-so-distant future, we are being asked to make yet another extension to the circumstances in which MAID is available.
According to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Canada's largest mental health teaching hospital and one of the world's leading research centres in the mental health field, in any given year, one in five Canadians experience a mental illness. That, to put it mildly, is a significant number. Furthermore, by the time Canadians reach 40 years of age, one in two, which is half the population, have or have had a mental illness.
We need to recognize what that means for our country. Mental illness is a serious problem, but addressing it by making assisted suicide an option is not the way to proceed.
Speaking to the CBC, the minister of disability said that she frequently hears that some people with disabilities are seeking assisted death because they cannot find adequate housing or sufficient care, that they are choosing death because of a lack of social supports.
Is that not also the case for those suffering from mental illness? The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health tells us that about 4,000 Canadians commit suicide each year, an average of almost 11 a day, people of all ages and backgrounds. Those numbers are sobering.
In Ontario, 4% of adults and 14% of high school students report having seriously contemplated suicide in the past year. More than 75% of suicides involve men, but women attempt suicide three to four times more often. More than half of suicides involve people aged 45 or older.
In Alberta, each year, according to the University of Alberta, one in six people will seriously think about suicide. There are an average of 2,400 hospital stays and more than 6,000 emergency room visits annually for self-inflicted injuries, the result of suicide attempts. More than 500 Albertans will die by suicide each year. According to Alberta Health Services, in 2018, 7,254 Albertans visited the emergency department for suicide attempts. Three out of four suicide deaths are male, about 50% being middle-aged men aged 40 to 64.
After accidents, suicide is the second leading cause of death for people aged 15 to 24. Indigenous people, especially youth, die by suicide at rates much higher than non-indigenous people. First nations youth aged 15 to 24 die by suicide about six times more often than non-indigenous youth. Suicide rates for Inuit youth are about 24 times the national average. This is a national tragedy.
Experts tell us that mental and physical health are linked, which means that people with long-term physical health conditions such as chronic pain are much more likely to also experience mood disorders. In the same way, people suffering from mood disorders are at much higher risk of developing a long-term medical condition.
What does it say about Canada as a society and Canadians as people that our response to mental illness is now going to be focusing on killing people rather than appropriate medical treatment? If we were doing a better job of supporting those who are mentally ill, we might not be having this discussion today.
Many of those suffering from mental illness in its various forms will tell us that there are good days and bad days. On the bad days, when the dark cloud descends and it feels like it will never lift, death seems a pleasant option, but for most people, it does lift. As I said earlier, about half the population will experience some form of mental illness at some point in their lives. For most, it is something they can overcome.
Making suicide easier by calling it “medical assistance in dying” will, I am certain, mean that people with treatable mental illness will choose death. Some may do so because they are having a low period and do not see any hope for the future. For others, it may be a lack of medical and social support to help them deal with their illness.
Mental illness in Canada is estimated to cost about $50 billion annually when we include health care costs, loss of productivity and a reduction in health-related quality of life. That cost could be reduced if we were to invest more in mental health promotion and illness prevention programs, more support for early intervention aimed at children and families, and more emphasis on treatment for depression and anxiety disorders.
We need to pass this legislation, because there is a deadline approaching. Even more, though, we need to look at how we support those who are suffering from mental illness. Killing them should not be an option.
1263 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 4:36:56 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts (COVID-19 response and other measures).
The judicial system has been facing a series of delays in cases proceeding to trial, which has been made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Conservatives have raised concerns about the delays and the potential for criminals to walk free due to the Supreme Court's Jordan decision, which said that no more than 18 months can pass between the laying of a charge and the end of trial cases in provincial courts, or 30 months for cases in superior courts.
We have raised our concerns over the delays in the judicial system a number of times during the pandemic, both in the House and through the media, so it is good that the Liberals are finally listening. I understand that sometimes they have different priorities.
The court system scrambled to adapt and learn how to function during the pandemic, and it was obvious that changes were needed. I could have made this speech at the height of the pandemic, when the need was very urgent. The government recognized the need then and introduced Bill C-23, but it was obviously not a priority. That bill died on the Order Paper when the House was dissolved by the Liberals for their unnecessary election. However, as with many efforts of the government, I suppose we can consider it to be better late than never, though it seems sometimes that on truly pressing issues, such as inflation, for the Liberals to do anything, it is more never than late.
It is indeed important to support the courts in the technological transition that has been stimulated by the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also important to be as prepared as possible for a future pandemic or similar disruptions.
In the past two years, we have all discovered new ways of doing business. Some of those ways have been beneficial, others arguably not as much. So too is the case with this bill.
For justice to be truly done, it must be seen to be done. Any citizen has the right to attend court and observe the proceedings. In the past, that has naturally been a right that could be limited by the physical space of the courtroom. Allowing virtual proceedings would change that limitation while bringing with it the issue of controlling the dissemination of images from the proceedings. We have gone from cameras not being allowed into a courtroom to everyone having the ability to take screenshots or even videos of the proceedings.
There is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has been felt throughout our criminal justice system. Problems that perhaps we did not realize we had have been brought into focus. A modernization of the system is long overdue. The pandemic has shown us that action is very necessary now.
With the technological tools that are now available to us, it makes sense to allow, as this bill would, peace officers to apply for and obtain a warrant using telecommunications rather than having to appear in person before a judge. This would not take away from the necessity of the officer to answer any questions as to whether the warrant is really necessary. The legal necessities would not change, but there is a savings to the taxpayer and the environment in the officer not having to drive to appear before a judge.
We are all aware that the criminal justice system has been subjected to delays in proceedings, and sometimes that was exacerbated by the pandemic. While justice delayed is justice denied, no one wants to see a criminal walk free because the system could not bring them to trial fast enough.
The reforms suggested in this bill are small but incremental. It is important to remember that the fundamentals of justice would still be being observed, and that the increased use of teleconferencing in the courts would not take away from the fundamental rights of the accused to appear in person, but many, given the choice, might prefer to appear by video conference. This, incidentally, could reduce their legal fees since their lawyer would not have to be with them at the courthouse waiting for their case to be called.
One thing that concerns me with these reforms is the issue of fairness. I am not sure how the government can address that. Appearing by video in court proceedings requires access to technology that, at this point, is not available to every Canadian. Not everyone has the financial resources to own a computer. Not everyone has high-speed Internet access available to them. Certainly, the government does not have the resources to provide that.
At the same time, I recognize that there are other different burdens that come with having to make a court appearance in person that could bring with it the expense and hardship of travel. I am not certain how we can provide equal access to the justice system for all Canadians, but I know we have to try to keep improving the system until we get it right.
One area where I have serious concerns is the proposal in the bill that would allow the jury selection process to be done by video conference in some circumstances. While this would certainly make it less onerous for prospective jurors to take part in the selection process from their home or workplace, it does raise some privacy concerns. While technology makes remote appearances possible, technology could also be used to subvert the process, not to mention the right of an accused to see those who are to pass judgment on his or her case.
In Canada, an accused has a right to be tried by a jury of his or her peers, but there are times when, for security reasons, the jurors are anonymous. With the availability of facial recognition software, it is easy to imagine that prospective jurors appearing by video conference could be easily identified. This could leave them open to harassment or attempts to influence a jury's decision. That may sound unlikely, but if we are concerned for the administration of justice, it must be considered. Has the government considered how to deal with this issue?
This bill is not perfect, but neither is our justice system. The question we as parliamentarians must ask ourselves is this: Does the legislation make positive improvements to the administration of justice in our country, even if it is not perfect? If so, then we should probably support it.
1115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
