- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Fundy Royal
- New Brunswick
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $124,175.10
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, my colleague is quite right. With Bill C-7, but for the passage of Bill C-62, the impact would be profound on our health care system, on individuals suffering with mental illness and on the message we send Canadians suffering with mental illness. I can say only that the government has moved forward in this dangerous direction while ignoring at every turn the advice of experts, including, as I quoted extensively, the Society of Canadian Psychiatry, medical experts and legal experts, about the merits of moving forward. It is our job to debate these things, to consider them and to hear from experts. Unfortunately, because the government dropped the ball, it is up to us to pass the legislation before us to protect Canadians suffering with mental illness.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Canadians would be forgiven for thinking they have seen this movie before, because they have. It was only last year that we debated Bill C-39, which provided an extension of the coming into force of this dangerous legislation. Now we are debating Bill C-62, which was introduced two weeks ago thanks to consistent pressure from Conservatives, advocates, experts, organizations and individuals from across the country who want to help individuals live with mental illness, not help them end their lives.
How did we get here? We got here because we have a justice minister, a Prime Minister and a government that have ignored the science, the legal experts, the courts and the pleas of the most vulnerable. They have ignored Canadians. They have plowed ahead with legislation to expand medical assistance in dying to Canadians who deserve help, Canadians who are suffering from mental illness.
I do not need to tell the House about some of the shocking headlines we have seen over the last year. Veterans suffering with PTSD are being told by employees of Veterans Affairs that they could consider MAID. Individuals without housing are considering MAID for economic reasons. Individuals, as we heard at our justice committee when we studied Bill C-7, who did not wish to have MAID were consistently pressured to considered it.
On this side of the aisle, Conservatives have chosen the path of hope rather than harm, and we will continue to do so, but across the way, just this week, we heard a government minister say it is not a matter of if this expansion takes place; it is a matter of when.
I mentioned ignoring the law. When we were at the justice committee studying Bill C-7, we consistently heard the government say that we have to do this because the courts told us we have to. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, there was a court decision, which the government did not appeal. That decision in no way directed the full expansion of accessibility to MAID to those suffering from mental illness. In fact, it was not in the original legislation.
What happened with Bill C-7, which we studied at justice committee, in no way, shape or form involved expansion of MAID to those suffering from mental illness. However, when the bill got to the unelected Senate, it was amended to include this provision, which we had not even studied. The minister at the time assured us his bill was charter-compliant. The previous justice minister was at committee.
I am holding today a letter signed by 32 leading experts on the law, professors from faculties of law around the country. The letter says, “We disagree as law professors that providing access to MAID for persons whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness,” which is what we are talking about today, “is constitutionally required, and that Carter...created or confirmed a constitutional right to suicide, as [the Minister of Justice] has repeatedly stated. Our Supreme Court has never confirmed that there is a broad constitutional right to obtain help with suicide via health-care provider ending-of-life.”
Those are powerful words. If I had time, I would read the names of the 32 professors who signed the letter. People would recognize many of them. They would certainly recognize the different universities they represent.
With the letter in hand, I said to the minister of justice, “Minister, you have come here saying that, constitutionally, you have to do this, but these 32 experts are saying you do not. Who is right, you or these experts?". The minister said, “I'm right.”
That is the attitude we have seen consistently with the government as it has plowed ahead in spite of the evidence, in spite of the concerns and in spite of the pleas from disability groups, mental health experts and psychiatrists.
I have a brief from the Society of Canadian Psychiatry, which makes a number of conclusions. I do not have time to read them all, but I want to touch on a couple of the conclusions:
At this time, it is impossible to predict in any legitimate way that mental illness in individual cases is irremediable. A significant number of individuals receiving MAID for sole mental illness would have improved and recovered.
This is a finding of the Society of Canadian Psychiatry. I have already spoken about this a bit, but even they can see this. They go on to say:
The political process leading to the planned expansion of MAID for mental illness has not followed a robust and fulsome process, has not reflected the range of opinions and evidence-based concerns on the issue, and has been selectively guided by expansion activists.
If that does not send a shiver down one's spine, I do not know what would. When we are talking about Canadians at their most vulnerable place, they should be able to count on us. How many of us participate in, for example, Bell Let's Talk Day every year? We say to people, if they are suffering with mental illness, to reach out, that we are here to help and that they should talk to someone they trust and access mental health support. Now, in spite of all this, we have psychiatrists saying the government is moving in the wrong direction.
I turn to their recommendations:
The Board of the Society of Canadian Psychiatry recommends that the planned 2024 MAID for mental illness expansion be paused—
It's not for a year, not for three years and not for five years, but:
—indefinitely, without qualification and presupposition that such implementation can safely be introduced at any arbitrary pre-determined date.
What are we led to believe when a government will not listen to legal experts when it comes to the criminal law and will not listen to psychiatrists when it comes to mental illness? It begs the question of who it is listening to and why.
This is the second time, and Conservatives have warned all along that there would be a dangerous, slippery slope. Canada has leapt ahead of all other nations. Some nations were ahead of the curve on this compared to Canada. Now they look at us and ask what happened that we would even be discussing providing assisted death to someone who comes to Veterans Affairs or to one of the number of hospitals across our country, looking for help, and instead is offered medical assistance in dying.
I want to set the record straight that the Liberal government has not, in any way, been bound by the courts to expand MAID to those whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. This was a path it chose to take. We need to take this time to reflect on that path, to turn back and to give people hope.
We all know individuals who have been touched by mental illness in the health care system. We know the wait times can be extraordinary for people to get help. We also know the government has contributed to those wait times. After eight years, people are suffering.
I would urge members to support this bill and then to look at ways to provide support for those suffering with mental illness, not to offer them assistance in death.
I move:
That the question be now put.
1244 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 10:50:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we know we are in this situation because a radical justice minister and a radical government have pushed this agenda.
I want to get the member's thoughts on this quote from 32 law professors. They state:
We disagree as law professors that providing access to MAiD for persons whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness is constitutionally required...as Minister Lametti has repeatedly stated.
I asked the minister, when he appeared at the justice committee, who was right, these 32 legal experts or him. He said, of course, that he was right.
I want to ask the member this. Does he believe that these 32 legal experts are right or that the former minister of justice was right?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the minister seems to be of the opinion that, if we just let people warm up to the idea, it will somehow become a good idea.
What I am saying is that this is not something that should be offered to Canadians this year, next year or the year after that. Offering medical assistance in dying to someone who is suffering with mental illness is not the right move forward. The member is quite right in saying there are rules within Bill C-7 that certainly do not contemplate this massive expansion, rules that apply to someone who is near death or has a reasonable foreseeability of death. Those rules are not made to apply to someone who is suffering with mental illness.
I would argue that all of us in this place should agree to do better and to fight, hand in hand, for those who are suffering with mental illness.
154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, today we are seeing an admission of a process that was far too rushed. Just two years ago, the Minister of Justice appeared at a justice committee one morning and said that there was not a consensus on how to move forward with expanding medical assistance in dying to those whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. However, later that day, after the Senate had amended the legislation to include mental illness, the minister suddenly said in the House that he was confident there was a consensus. The minister's own charter analysis of Bill C-7 said that those whose underlying condition is mental illness needed to be protected.
Therefore, we see evidence now that 70% of Canadians are opposed to this expansion. We know that many Liberal members are voicing their concerns. Will the minister consider delaying this expansion indefinitely, so that those who are suffering with mental illness, such as our veterans with PTSD, are protected?
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
