- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Foothills
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $161,345.02
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, as we have heard this evening and throughout the day, there is no question that this is a personal issue for many of the representatives in this chamber. I can speak to that as well. When the legislation for MAID first came up two parliaments ago, I held a number of open houses and town halls in my riding, and I have never had a larger turnout than I did for doctor-assisted dying.
In fact, my colleague, whom I have a great deal of respect for, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, attended one of those open houses to help explain and walk my constituents through what this legislation meant. The biggest concern and biggest worry for my constituents at that time was the lack of strong and strict safeguards for the expansion of access to MAID. Certainly, what we are seeing now is a frightening broadening of access to MAID.
If there are any red flags for the Liberal government, it would be the fact that when MAID was first legislated in 2016, about 1,000 Canadians accessed it, and that number is now more than 36,000 in one year. If there was ever a reason for the Liberal government to stand up and take notice that this legislation has far exceeded its original intentions, that would be it. It was based on a foreseeable death, a terminal illness or someone being in unbearable pain. This is who should have been accessing MAID.
Now we are seeing those lines so blurred that they almost do not exist. The fact that the Minister of Justice has only delayed implementing access to MAID for those with mental illness is again a very stark red flag. That is why we are seeing so many Canadians stand up, and in many cases emotionally, to say that this has gone much too far. We are hearing so many anecdotes and examples, not only from our constituents but from people across the country, of people who are already accessing MAID who never should have been eligible.
A constituent of mine, Mark Meincke, who is a very well know veterans advocate, called me one afternoon and told me about a friend, a veteran, who had been on the phone with his Veterans Affairs caseworker. When he talked about his mental health issues and wanting to access mental health resources, the caseworker told him they could offer him MAID if that was something he would rather do than contemplate suicide. Actually, the caseworker's language was much starker than that.
Initially, I thought it could not be true and that Veterans Affairs could not possibly be offering MAID to the men and women in uniform who served our country and made such an incredible sacrifice that most of us could never possibly fathom it. When the heroes of our country were reaching out in their vulnerable moment, they were being offered the easy way out.
It is no wonder that many of our veterans now feel they are not getting the services they need from the federal government, because it is just too costly. The government is trying to clear a backlog of files off its desk, and that is why it is offering access to doctor-assisted dying. That is not what we should be offering our veterans, those who sacrificed everything for us. We should be ensuring they have access to the mental health care and PTSD treatments they deserve, not access to doctor-assisted dying.
Of course, this is coming from a government with a Prime Minister who said to veterans that they were just asking for more than the government could give. We can see why there is frustration and why a seed of doubt has been planted among veterans and first responders across this country.
I am glad to hear that the government took action on that one caseworker. Unfortunately, even though we were told this was a one-off, we have now heard several stories of other veterans being offered similar services from other caseworkers. As someone who has been around government for a while on both sides of the House, I know these caseworkers are usually given a script that they go by. What is worrisome is that this was not just a one-off and was something Veterans Affairs was offering our men and women in uniform.
I would urge my colleagues across the floor in the Liberal caucus to see that giving this a one-year delay is not enough. If there was ever a piece of legislation in the House of Commons that we had to get right and that we could not make mistakes on, try to rush through or base the decisions on ideology or activism, it is this one. I do not know if I have ever said this standing in the House, but lives literally hang in the balance and are at risk if we get this wrong.
I would urge my Liberal colleagues across the floor to listen to the stakeholders in their communities, to listen to the community-based service groups and charities and mental health programs in their communities that are standing up and saying, “Stop; this is going way too far.” I cannot be the only one who is getting dozens of calls and emails from those groups in my riding who are asking me to meet with them and try to relay that message and those concerns to the Liberal government. They have lost hope and, instead of providing hope for life and offering the essential resources that Canadians need, the Liberal government is offering them death.
As parliamentarians and as Canadians, is that really what we want our country to be? Is that really the bar that we are setting for ourselves? Rather than invest in palliative care and mental health services and services for our veterans and those with disabilities and mental illness, are we going to take the easy way and just make doctor-assisted dying more accessible? I do not believe that is the result we want.
A constituent of mine, Pilar, called me the other day and said, “I have worked in palliative care for several years, and in several other domains of medical care, and I can tell you, it will be the most vulnerable who will suffer the most from this, and experience undue pressure and coercion to allow the state to end their lives.” That is very profound from someone in the health care system.
I have heard similar comments from groups like Inclusion Foothills, which is a group in my riding that works with folks with disabilities, including mental and emotional. I met with the group before Christmas. Its members have a profound fear with respect to this MAID expansion of access for mental illness and concerns for their clients who have disabilities. Time and time again, they said, they were hearing from families who are concerned they may lose their loved ones because they were offered MAID in a stressful time or moment of weakness and vulnerability.
All of us have had those moments of vulnerability and anxiety and we would hope that in those times of need the services that we require would be made available to us. At Inclusion Foothills, they were saying that Canadians with cognitive disabilities or depression and anxiety are easily more susceptible to offers of coercion, well-meaning or otherwise, perceived or real, of an option to end their suffering. I know, again, that I am not the only one who has families and persons with disabilities and mental health concerns and concerned residents reaching out to my office and begging for safeguards to be put in place to protect their vulnerable loved ones, their friends and certainly our neighbours.
The Government of Canada's own website acknowledges that, “Mental illness is experienced by 1 in 3 Canadians during their lifetime” and that suicide “...is a significant cause of premature death in Canada.” The website goes on to state:
Most mental illnesses can be effectively treated by health professionals and community-based services....
Unfortunately, because of the stigma of mental illness, many people avoid or delay treatment.
The most important part of that statement is “mental illnesses can be effectively treated”. That should be the focus, and not the option of doctor-assisted dying.
Finally, I want to address another community in my riding, and that is the agriculture community and rural Canadians. A survey that was done last year said that 76% of farmers who were surveyed are suffering from medium to extreme mental health concerns and stress. Worldwide, male farmers are at higher risk of dying by suicide and they are less likely to ask for help. “Cowboy up” is what we hear all the time. In fact, we had a unanimous consent motion in this House asking for the government to provide a mandate in Farm Credit Canada's mandate to support mental health programs. The Liberals voted against that.
My constituents are unequivocal: MAID was never meant as an emotional decision; it was never meant to be outside the bounds of those as an exceptional reason. I would encourage the Liberal government not to just delay this for a year and not to put a timeline on it. Let us do this right. Let us make sure that we stand up for all Canadians with disabilities and mental illness. Let us do it right.
1593 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 8:19:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kelowna—Lake Country.
It is unfortunate that I have to get up once again to speak about the opioid crisis in Canada. Unfortunately, it seems we are doing this on a fairly regular basis.
My colleagues will know that I am not necessarily one to stand up here and talk about statistics and that I try and focus on real stories and anecdotes, but the stats, especially for the province of Alberta, show that opioid deaths have increased substantially over the last couple of years, and suicides are a part of that. Just to put that in perspective, across Canada there were 1,700 apparent opioid toxicity deaths between July and September of 2020. That is the highest quarterly number since we started measuring these stats in 2016. That is a 120% increase from year to year over that same time frame the previous year. There were more than 3,300 apparent opioid toxicity deaths, representing a 74% increase just between the six months of October 2019 and March 2020. That is 1,900 deaths.
These are significant numbers. Yes, they are numbers but they are also friends, relatives, sons, daughters, mother and fathers whom we have lost. I know I am not the only one in the House, many of my colleagues and friends have also lost loved ones, friends and people who are close to them due to an opioid overdose or suicide. We knew this was a crisis going into the pandemic, but the pandemic has certainly exacerbated the mental health crisis we are facing in Canada, and as a result, the opioid crisis that comes along with that.
Over the past year, I had the honour of chairing a Conservative working group where we focused on the opioid crisis and mental health. We talked to stakeholders across Canada and around the world. We asked them what their insight and advice was to address this, what we were missing and what tools we were overlooking in our tool box. There are a couple of things I want to share in my speech that I learned from those stakeholders, from doctors, nurses, counsellors and family members who had lost loved ones, as well as from those who have been through opioid addiction and recovery.
What I learned is that there is no silver bullet. There is not one program that, as a federal government in partnership with our provinces and territories, we could implement tomorrow that we know would resolve the issue, this crisis. It is not a one-size-fits-all. We need a suite of programs and initiatives to address this crisis, but I think the most important thing is that we need to do it now.
Certainly, we heard some platitudes from the government. I do not want to make this overly partisan, but we heard from many levels of government that they understand it is a crisis, but very few are actually doing something about it. We have had emergency debates on it in the House in the past and I have not seen a lot of changes. That is concerning. We cannot carry on like this.
The one thing we have heard is that the programs have been underfunded and there has not been a true priority put on addressing the opioid crisis. When I say “underfunded”, I do not think, from what we have heard from stakeholders, there is a lack of funds going to some of these programs and initiatives that are out there. The problem is underfunding with respect to setting priorities. One of the things we heard from just about every single stakeholder we spoke with during the last year and a bit, going through this discussion, was that there are no metrics to measure which programs are successful and which are not.
We could take a shotgun approach and throw money at just about every program that is out there, but unless we have a way to measure what is working and what is not, we are wasting our time and money. That is what we heard from so many of these groups. It is not that we are lacking resources, but there are so many programs out there, Some of them are working and some of them are working exceptionally well, but some of them are not. We want to ensure that those that are getting the funds are doing a good job. It also empowers them to make sure they are using taxpayer dollars to the very best benefit.
Another example we heard from many of the stakeholders is the need for a 988 national suicide hotline. This would be a very easy solution that the Liberal government could implement immediately and the House could support unanimously. How can Canadians trust the Liberal government to take this seriously if it cannot even implement a simple 988 suicide hotline?
827 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
