So V ote

Feb/15/23 4:07:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Conservative members of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to table, in both official languages, our dissenting report. Conservatives completely reject the committee's endorsement of the Liberal government's new arbitrary deadline to expand MAID in cases of mental illness in one year. The evidence from experts, including leading psychiatrists, is clear. This radical expansion cannot be implemented safely, and there is no evidence to indicate that it will be any different a year from now. We are also disappointed that the committee failed to undertake a meaningful study on the effectiveness and enforcement of existing safeguards, this at a time when there are multiple alarming reports of abuse, non-compliance and Canadians falling through the cracks under the Liberals' MAID regime. Finally, we reject the committee's irresponsible recommendation to expand MAID for mature minors, especially having regard for significant knowledge gaps and a complete lack of consultation with impacted groups, including young Canadians.

167 words

Feb/13/23 9:37:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-39

Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the many leading psychiatrists who have made it very clear that this expansion cannot be implemented safely, and notwithstanding the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry calling on the government to stop this expansion, the Minister of Justice, even though he has moved this bill forward, has actually said that the government could have gone ahead with this anyhow, notwithstanding that irremediability, suicidality and other legal and clinical issues remain unresolved. Does this not speak to the degree with which this minister is blinded by ideology—

89 words

Feb/13/23 6:06:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-39

Madam Speaker, my friend, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, was absolutely right when she said that there is no science and no evidence to support this expansion. Indeed, the overwhelming evidence at the special joint committee, of which I am a co-vice-chair, was precisely the opposite. The hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne asked the member about whether it is appropriate to extend the deadline to essentially get it right, but evidence before the committee from a leading psychiatrist was that the medical error rate on the question of irremediability could be anywhere from 2% to 95%. In the face of that, it would seem to me that there are no safeguards to get this right. The only thing to do to get it right would be to scrap this ill-conceived—

137 words

All Topics

Feb/13/23 1:01:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-39

Mr. Speaker, the message it is sending to persons who are struggling with mental illness is that their life is not important and that we are going to offer them death instead of help and support. The member raises the issue of veterans who are offered MAID completely inappropriately and, frankly, in contravention of the Criminal Code. The Minister of Veterans Affairs, when he came to the veterans affairs committee, said that it had happened once or twice and that he had undertaken a thorough review. We now know that is not true and that it has happened multiple times. It speaks more broadly to how the government has mishandled MAID in so many different ways.

116 words

All Topics

Feb/13/23 12:59:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-39

Mr. Speaker, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has contributed thoughtfully to the special joint committee. In answer to his question, I note that during the 2021 election campaign, the Prime Minister claimed that mental health was a priority of the government. He committed to a $4.5-billion mental health transfer, but none of that money has gone out the door. There is no mental health transfer. Instead of providing support and help, the government has been almost singularly focused on offering death, on offering MAID to persons who are struggling with mental health. It speaks to how misplaced the priorities of the government are. It also speaks to the fact that once again, like so much of what the Prime Minister says, his words are nothing more than empty words.

134 words

All Topics

Feb/13/23 12:56:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-39

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Montcalm, who serves on the special joint committee and is a very thoughtful member on it. At the end of the day, the member is arguing that somehow expanding MAID in cases of mental illness could be appropriate, but what he is demonstrating is exactly the opposite. He is highlighting why it would be inappropriate, given the fact that suicidality is a symptom of mental illness and given the fact that 90% of persons who commit suicide suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder. I think that all underscores the fact that this is not acceptable. Expanding MAID for mental illness is not an appropriate treatment. It is not an appropriate solution for mental illness. What the government should be doing, instead of offering the mentally ill death, is offering the mentally ill hope, support and the care they deserve.

148 words

All Topics

Feb/13/23 12:53:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-39

Mr. Speaker, I am not misleading anyone. If anyone is misleading, it is the parliamentary secretary, with the greatest of respect to him. I am not having it both ways. He mis-characterized what I said with respect to the expert panel. I said that the expert panel acknowledged what other experts who appeared before the committee acknowledged, which is that irremediability is difficult if not impossible to determine. Then, the expert panel washed its hands of coming up with recommendations on how this could be implemented safely. It offered no objective criteria. It said it could be done on a case-by-case basis. My point with respect to the expert panel is how flawed of a report it was. The government's own expert panel said to go ahead with this, but if we read the fine print, it provided plenty of reasons why the government should not go ahead with it, not by not extending it, but by scrapping it altogether.

164 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 114 - Oct/20/22

Feb/13/23 12:32:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-39

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-39, a legislation that imposes a new arbitrary deadline of March 2024 in place of the Liberal government's arbitrary deadline of March 2023 whereby persons with a sole underlying mental health disorder would be eligible for MAID. I support Bill C-39 only because it is better than the alternative, namely that in one short month from now, on March 17, MAID would be available to persons with a sole underlying mental health disorder. This would be an absolute disaster and certainly result in vulnerable persons prematurely ending their lives, when otherwise, they could have gone on to recover and lead healthy and happy lives. Rather than imposing a new arbitrary deadline that is not grounded on science and evidence, what the Liberal government should be doing is abandoning this radical, reckless and dangerous expansion of MAID altogether. This is why I wholeheartedly support Bill C-314, which was introduced last Friday by my friend and colleague, the member for Abbotsford, and would do exactly that. One would expect that before deciding to expand MAID in cases of mental illness, a responsible government would take the time to study the issue thoroughly and consult widely with experts. After all, we are talking about life and death. We are talking about a significant expansion that would impact a vulnerable group of Canadians. However, the Liberal government is not responsible, and that is not what happened. This is why the government finds itself in the mess it is in today with this rushed, 11th-hour legislation to delay the expansion. Instead, the Minister of Justice accepted a radical Senate amendment to Bill C-7, which established an arbitrary sunset clause. That set in motion this expansion of MAID in cases of mental illness, effective in March of 2023. To provide some context, Bill C-7 was a response to the Truchon decision; its purpose was to remove a critical safeguard, namely that death be reasonably foreseeable before someone is eligible for MAID. It was a terrible piece of legislation that the government should have appealed but did not. As bad as the bill was, when it was studied at the justice committee, of which I was a member at the time, nowhere in the bill was there any mention of expanding MAID in cases of mental illness. The justice committee did not hear evidence on that point. Indeed, when the minister came to committee, he said that there were inherent risks and complexities with expanding MAID in cases of mental illness, and therefore, it would be inappropriate to do so. The bill went over to the Senate, and all of a sudden, the minister unilaterally accepted the amendment. Then what did the Liberals do? After little more than a day of debate, they shut down debate on a bill that had drastically changed in scope and rammed through the legislation for this expansion of MAID in cases of mental illness. There was no meaningful study and absolutely no consultation with experts, including psychiatrists; persons struggling with mental illness; or these person's advocates. There was nothing. In short, the justice minister made the decision to go ahead with this significant expansion and then said the issue would be studied later. Hence, there was the establishment of an expert panel that was appointed after the government had already made the decision to go ahead. One would think that if an expert panel were going to be appointed, it would be appointed before deciding. However, that is not what happened with the justice minister and Liberal government. We saw a special joint committee established after the fact. Talk about getting it backward, putting blind ideology and hubris ahead of science and evidence, and showing a total disregard for the concerns and lives of Canadians struggling with mental illness. Had the Minister of Justice and the Liberal government done their homework at the outset, they would have learned very quickly that this expansion of MAID cannot be implemented safely. I serve as a co-vice-chair on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. As early as the spring, the committee heard from multiple witnesses, including representatives of the mental health community, and most importantly with respect to some of the clinical issues, leading psychiatrists. The body of evidence showing that this cannot proceed safely was overwhelming. One of the key reasons cited for this was that in the case of mental illness, it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict irremediability. In other words, in the case of mental illness, it is difficult or impossible to determine whether someone can recover and become healthy. This is a serious problem. Let us look at some of the evidence that was available to the minister in the spring. Dr. John Maher, a clinical psychiatrist and medical ethicist who appeared before the committee, said, “Psychiatrists don't know and can't know who will get better and live decades of good life. Brain diseases are not liver diseases.” Dr. Brian Mishara, a clinical psychiatrist and professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal, told the committee, “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.” Even the government's expert panel conceded the difficulty in predicting irremediability. At page 9 of the expert panel report, the panel observed, “The evolution of many mental disorders, like some other chronic conditions, is difficult to predict for a given individual. 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.” The government's own expert panel said that it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict irremediability. If one cannot predict irremediability, persons who could go on to lead healthy and happy lives may have their lives prematurely ended. This is a problem that the government cannot avoid and that has not been resolved. Let me remind this House that, under the law, one must have an irremediable condition in order to be eligible for MAID. However, here we have leading experts and psychiatrists, including the government's expert panel, saying that it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict irremediability. According to the psychiatrists who appeared before the special joint committee, what that means is that medical assessments in cases of mental illness for MAID are going to be decided on the basis of “hunches and guesswork that could be wildly inaccurate.” Those are the words of Dr. Mark Sinyor, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, who appeared before the special joint committee. These words were echoed by other psychiatrists who appeared before our committee. The expert panel did not use such language, but it essentially conceded the point in its report because it was unable to come up with any objective standard by which to measure whether a patient's condition in the case of mental illness is irremediable. Instead, the expert panel ridiculously and recklessly said that it was going to wash its hands clean of this and that it was going to give a big green light and say it can all be done on a case-by-case basis. There would be no objective standard whatsoever; all would be guesswork and subjective assessment. At the special joint committee on the issue of predicting irremediability in the context of mental illness, Dr. Mark Sinyor said that physicians undertaking a patient assessment “could be making an error 2% of the time or 95% of the time.” A 95% error rate is the risk on a matter of life and death, on a procedure that is irreversible and results in the termination of someone's life. For persons who are struggling with mental illness, this is the government's solution. The minister just stood in this place and said, “Damn the evidence. Damn the facts. We are going full steam ahead”. I cannot think of a more reckless approach than the one the Liberal government has taken on an issue of profound importance to so many Canadians. It is not just the issue of irremediability, although given that this cannot be resolved, it should be the end of the matter. In addition, psychiatrists and other experts at the special joint committee emphasized that in the case of mental illness, it is very difficult to distinguish between a request motivated by suicidality versus one made rationally. In fact, suicidality is a symptom of mental illness, and indeed, 90% of persons who end their lives by suicide have a diagnosable mental disorder. To illustrate how radical the government is, I note that when the Ontario Medical Association surveyed Ontario psychiatrists in 2021, 91% said they opposed the expansion of MAID for mental illness under Bill C-7. About 2% expressed support. Some 91% were against, 2% were in support and the reset were undecided. This speaks to how reckless, how radical, how extreme and how out of touch the government is on the question of expanding MAID in the case of mental illness. In the face of the overwhelming evidence that we heard at committee, we issued an interim dissenting report calling on the Liberals to put a halt to this radical and reckless expansion. The minister ignored our interim dissenting report. He ignored the experts. He ignored the evidence. It appears he is so blinded by ideology that it is impossible for him to see what is in plain sight: This cannot be done safely. In December, when it was evident that the minister was not listening, the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada, which includes the heads of psychiatry at all 17 medical schools, said to put a halt to this expansion. However, the minister still was not prepared to act. Indeed, it was not until the day after Parliament rose for Christmas that he had a late afternoon press conference where he made some vague commitment to introducing legislation in which there would be some type of extension. Then, with only 17 sitting days left before the expiration of the sunset clause, the minister finally saw fit to introduce this bill. I think this very clearly illustrates the shambolic approach with which the government has handled this issue. We now have legislation, but what does this legislation do? As I noted at the outset of my speech, it provides for a new arbitrary deadline, even though issues of irremediability, suicidality and capacity to consent have remained unresolved for the past two years. There is absolutely no evidence that those issues are going to be resolved a year from now. What we have is nothing more than an arbitrary deadline, and a year from now, we are going to find ourselves in exactly the same place. Let us be clear. When we speak about suicidality, irremediability and capacity to consent, these are not issues to be brushed under the rug. These are serious legal and political issues that are fundamental to determining whether this can go forward. In closing, whether this expansion takes place a month from now or a year from now, it will be an absolute disaster and will result in persons struggling with mental illness having their lives wrongfully terminated. It is time for the government to get its head out of the sand, stop being blinded by extreme ideology, follow the science, follow the evidence and scrap this ill-conceived expansion.

1963 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 114 - Oct/20/22

Oct/20/22 8:10:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I respect the member for Montcalm, who has made many important contributions to that committee, but I have to say that I am confused as to what he is saying, as if we are somehow delaying this. The committee agreed that we needed more time to study the many complex issues, and now what we have is a sunset clause that will expire at the same time that we are tabling a report. That is incredible when we are talking about an issue like life and death. It underscores the need for why the government needs to extend the sunset clause so that we protect vulnerable people, ensure that we get this right and ensure that people do not fall through the cracks. After all, we are talking about life and death.

134 words

Context: House Hansard - 114 - Oct/20/22

Oct/20/22 8:07:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the parliamentary secretary is right. There are those who would make the argument that he just made, on the basis of section 15, or that he asserts some who have come before the committee have made. That is fair. However, the issue is whether this can be done safely, and the balance of evidence before the committee is that it cannot, at least at this time. What the government should have done all along is undertaken the appropriate review instead of rushing ahead and saying it was doing this and now we are going to study it. In short, I would submit that the government put the cart before the horse, and unfortunately vulnerable people are going to be put at risk. There is an opportunity still, because it is not March 2023 yet, for the government to—

141 words

Context: House Hansard - 111 - Oct/17/22

Oct/20/22 8:01:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Yorkton—Melville. Millions of Canadians live with a mental illness. Tragically, each year more than 4,000 Canadians commit suicide, the vast majority of whom suffer from a mental illness. Concerningly, many more Canadians who suffer from mental illness will have their lives prematurely ended as a result of the Liberal government's ideologically driven, evidence-free expansion of MAID in cases where mental illness is the sole underlying condition. It was not long ago that the Minister of Justice himself cautioned against expanding MAID in cases where mental illness is the sole underlying condition. In this very place, when Bill C-7 was debated, he said that there are “inherent complexities and risks with MAID on the basis of mental illness as the sole criterion, such as suicidality being a symptom of some mental illnesses”. What has changed? Those inherent complexities and risks remain. What has changed is purely political. When Bill C-7 went over to the Senate, the Senate adopted a significant amendment to drastically expand MAID in cases of sole mental illness by way of a sunset clause that would come into effect in March 2023. Despite having spoken of “inherent complexities and risks”, the Minister of Justice, incredibly, did a 180° turnaround and accepted the Senate amendment, despite the absence of meaningful study and the absence of meaningful consultation. Then, the Liberal government shut down debate to ram through the bill and ram through this radical expansion of MAID. By law, in order to qualify for MAID, it must be established that the patient suffers from a “grievous and irremediable” condition that is “incurable”, in which one is in an “irreversible” state of decline. In other words, in order to qualify for MAID, it must be established that one cannot get better. The Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, of which I am a vice-chair, has heard testimony from medical experts, including psychiatrists, and the evidence is that it is not safe to move ahead. That is because it is not possible, or at the very least it is difficult, to predict irremediability. Even the government's own expert panel concluded as much. On page 9 of the government's own expert panel report, the expert panel said, “it is difficult, if not impossible, for clinicians to make accurate predictions about the future for an individual patient” in cases of sole mental illness. That means persons who are suffering from mental illness who could get better and go on to lead happy and productive lives will have their lives prematurely ended. As such, I submit that it is reckless and irresponsible for the government to move ahead. What the government should do instead is take the evidence of the expert panel, listen to the experts who have come before the special joint committee and put a pause on this significant and, I would submit, dangerous expansion of MAID. Anything less would be a betrayal of some of the most vulnerable people in this country.

528 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 108 - Oct/5/22

Oct/17/22 5:49:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-22

Mr. Speaker, it speaks to the record of the Liberal government in not listening to persons with disabilities and disabilities rights organizations when they expressed alarm at the reasonably foreseeable criterion being struck down by one judge in one decision. We have seen heartbreaking cases now of people who have turned to MAID because of such things as a lack of adequate housing, which is something completely not what MAID was set up to do. When I asked the Prime Minister a question about that, instead of addressing the issue, and instead of showing some compassion, he said that we were wrapped up in ideology. I think that speaks to his attitude toward Canadians living with disabilities and how insensitive he is.

122 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 79 - Jun/1/22

Oct/5/22 4:21:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I wish to present is one in which petitioners are calling on the Parliament of Canada to enshrine in the Criminal Code the protection of conscience rights for physicians and other medical professionals who are being subjected to coercion and intimidation to participate in medical assistance in dying. Such a law would be consistent with protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed to all Canadians under section 2(a) of the charter, that being freedom of conscience, which is being infringed upon. It is disappointing that just a few moments ago the government voted down a bill that would have protected those rights in law.

110 words

Context: House Hansard - 79 - Jun/1/22

Jun/1/22 10:45:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, despite empty words of concern, the government has simply washed its hands clean of issues of noncompliance with the so-called safeguards that were brought in by the government. These are matters under the Criminal Code. They fall within the jurisdiction of the government, and the government has a responsibility to ensure that safeguards are adequate and that vulnerable Canadians are not falling through the cracks under the MAID regime. Instead, the government has ploughed full steam ahead, seeking to rapidly expand MAID as vulnerable Canadians fall through the cracks. I would submit that if anyone is wrapped up in ideology, it is the government, at the expense of vulnerable Canadians. I listed a series of cases of noncompliance, and I would ask the parliamentary secretary to acknowledge that there are instances of noncompliance and to provide a better answer than—

144 words

Context: House Hansard - 69 - May/11/22

Jun/1/22 10:38:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I recently posed a question to the Prime Minister regarding abuse and non-compliance under the medical assistance and dying regime. Abuse and non-compliance are not hypotheticals. They are happening, and they are well documented. Vulnerable Canadians are falling through the cracks. Quebec's commission on end-of-life care, as well as the Ontario's chief coroner's office, identified multiple cases of Criminal Code non-compliance, which is hardly something that should be taken lightly. In April, a 51-year-old London, Ontario, woman accessed MAID after she could not find adequate housing. Her condition was not irremediable as required by law. Last month, the RCMP opened a criminal investigation into the questionable MAID death of an Abbotsford, B.C., woman who suffered from depression. Then there is the case of Roger Foley, someone who requires 24-hour care. He was pressured to get MAID not once, but on at least four occasions. In one case, he recorded a health practitioner pressuring him to access MAID because, as she said, his care was simply too extensive. These cases are alarming and should concern the government. They are drawing international review, including from the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, who expressed serious concerns and called on the government to conduct full investigations to ensure there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect vulnerable Canadians. Recently in the U.K., an article was published in The Spectator entitled, “Why is Canada euthanising the poor?” In the face of all of that, I would have thought the Prime Minister would have expressed some level of concern and compassion in answer to my question. On the contrary. The Prime Minister engaged in the worst form of politics, claiming that anyone who would raise questions of abuse was “wrapped up in ideology”. How insensitive. How beneath the dignity of this place. After all, we are talking about vulnerable Canadians. We are talking about an active criminal investigation into the death of a B.C. woman as we speak. We are talking about grieving families who have lost loved ones because the law was not followed. We are talking about vulnerable Canadians who are at risk absent the enforcement of safeguards. Therefore, I ask the government again: Will it admit what everyone knows to be true, that there are serious abuses and instances of non-compliance, which put vulnerable Canadians at risk? What is it doing about it?

416 words

Context: House Hansard - 66 - May/6/22

May/11/22 3:11:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been several well-documented cases of abuse and non-compliance under the Liberals' MAID regime. This has drawn rebuke from disabilities rights organizations and a UN special rapporteur, and now the RCMP has launched a criminal investigation into the questionable MAID death of a B.C. woman who suffered from depression, and until now there has not been a word of concern from the Prime Minister. Will he admit that Canadians who are vulnerable are falling through the cracks and that there are serious abuses happening under the MAID regime?

94 words

Context: House Hansard - 66 - May/6/22

May/6/22 11:57:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one such case involved an Ontario woman who ended her life by MAID after she could not find adequate housing. Her condition was not irremediable, as required by law. Rather, she was vulnerable and desperate and had lost all hope. Do the Liberals believe that inadequate housing is an acceptable criterion for MAID?

55 words

Context: House Hansard - 47 - Mar/28/22

May/6/22 11:56:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, several horrific cases have recently been reported of vulnerable Canadians who have ended their lives by medical assistance in dying for reasons such as inadequate housing and lack of access to care. That is precisely what the Liberals claimed would never happen. When will the Liberals acknowledge that so-called MAID safeguards are not being enforced, putting the lives of vulnerable Canadians at risk?

66 words