Conservative MP Sets CBC Host Straight During Live Interview

[00:00:00]This fundamentally what we were hearing from people who suffer from mental illness only and wanted access to a doctor's help to die was I am suffering much as people who are irremediably suffering physically are thus I should have access to this same procedure. Why is it that you've come to the conclusion that those two things should not be equal essentially?

[00:00:21]>> Well, the overwhelming evidence is that made for mental illness cannot be carried out safely and there are two fundamental clinical issues that remain unresolved and won't be resolved for the foreseeable future and that is first of all that it's difficult if not impossible to accurately predict irremediability and what that means is that persons who could get better who could go on to lead healthy and happy lives would have their lives prematurely ended if this expansion went forward and secondly it is difficult to accurately distinguish a rational request for made versus one motivated by idle ideation in the context of mental illness and that's underscored by the fact that in about 90% of suicides mental illness is a factor.

[00:01:12]>> Uh there is a group of dissenting senators. There were a couple of dissenting reports and we should just clarify for folks because this is a it's a big committee 17 people liberals conservatives going in the same direction on this but we're going to hear from the other side of the equation in a minute and those dissenting senators essentially suggest you went about the work in the wrong way. They call the process deeply flawed. They say of the 44 witnesses that this committee heard from more than 2/3 were already publicly opposed to opening up made to people with mental illness only. They point to specific folks like the Canadian Psychiatric Association who wanted to testify they weren't invited to testify. Why not be open to hearing more opinions different from your own because you you have long held your your views on this. Well, why not hear more dissenting opinions?

[00:01:55]>> We heard a wide range of opinions and the senators had a proportionate number of witnesses. We heard many witnesses from the senators list.

[00:02:05]But the witnesses that we heard from overwhelmingly who are psychiatrists who are experts said that this cannot be done safely including the chair of the Association of chairs of psychiatry who represents all 17 chairs of psychiatry at Canada's medical schools. There's nothing close to a consensus. We heard evidence that you would be better off flipping a coin in terms of accurately predicting irremediability. Uh we're talking about life and death. We're talking about literally gambling with people's lives if this expansion were to go forward. So in the face of that, there is only one course of action to take and that is for the government to move forward with legislation to put an indefinite pause on this ill-advised ill-thought-out expansion. But you know what happened in the first place had the government followed the evidence and the facts instead of rushing into this by an 11th hour an amendment to Bill C-7 back in 2021 which set this whole train in motion.

[00:03:11]>> Which it's a reminder folks this is a couple of times now that the government has said, "Oh, we will offer this access." But they have to postpone it and now we have this new conclusion.

[00:03:19]We're going to get to the path forward in a minute, but I just want to stay with this thought about the evidence you heard and the people on both sides of this debate. We have a statement from Claire Brousseau. She's a woman who suffers from mental illness. She'd been hoping to access made dying with dignity provided us a statement. She wanted to testify before your committee. She didn't. Um she says of the the committee the committee you were a part of, "They believe our perspective isn't relevant and that I'm not a reliable witness to my own life. Clearly my judgment and account of my suffering is suspect.

[00:03:48]We're not worthy of being spoken to or even acknowledged. I don't think they understand that for us, winning is devastating and losing is dangerous.

[00:03:57]What would you say to her?

[00:03:58]>> Well, I would say what's dangerous is to move ahead with this expansion in the face of overwhelming evidence that it's like flipping a coin with people's lives. And I understand her strong views about this and I respect those views.

[00:04:13]But we had a limited time as a committee to hear from witnesses. We would have liked more meetings, but look, I've been on this committee for years and this is the third time we've had hearings and the evidence overwhelmingly is the same because these two political issues remain the same. And for the Liberals, the question is how many times can they bring in emergency legislation? They've done it twice.

[00:04:39]And I think that kicking the can down the road a third time isn't going to resolve these issues. So look, it's a complicated issue, but when it comes to persons who are suffering from mental health, the message that needs to be sent is to provide persons who are struggling, we need to give them help and hope. And there are gaps in terms of mental health supports that need to be closed and we need to work on that.

[00:05:06]>> An important point and I don't know that it's one that necessarily gets a lot of attention in this debate. I do though want to talk about what is going to be done about this particular issue. You are you're very clear in the dissenting report from the Conservatives. You do not want this expansion to ever take place. Um the Liberal chair was a bit more circumspect, I would say, in his additional report and he said not for now, but perhaps this issue could be re-examined if the the consensus changed, if if it's easier to put safeguards in place. Why close that door permanently? Why do you not take a position that maybe one day we can return to this discussion?

[00:05:40]>> Well, my position is put an indefinite pause. That is his position. That is the recommendation of the committee in the face of a deadline in which the sunset laws expires on March 17th of next year.

[00:05:52]So, if legislation isn't introduced to do that, then it will go forward. And And by the way, there is a clear path for the government to move forward to put an indefinite pause, and that's with Tamara Jansen's private members bill C-218, which will be debated and go in if it passes the house at committee in September. So, that's a path forward.

[00:06:10]>> Um so, and you've been again, you're very clear in the report that you want the Liberals to pick up this private members bill and have that be the path through this. But, let's take a step back. That assumes that the Liberals are going to look at this report and say, um we're on side with what the committee has decided.

[00:06:23]Justice Minister Sean Fraser has said they want to take some time, look at it, they're going to examine this in the coming weeks. How confident do you feel that the Liberals are going to take the advice of the majority in this case?

[00:06:32]>> Well, I hope that uh Sean Fraser follows the evidence and makes a decision based upon the evidence, recognizing that we are talking about life and death, and we are talking about some of the most vulnerable persons in Canadian society.

[00:06:51]>> feel that people around the the table don't recognize that? Like, I take your point, but do you not feel that everybody engaged in this debate politically understands it's life and death, but just takes different positions on what's best?

[00:07:02]>> Uh certainly, but I but I would say that uh when you can't accurately predict whether someone is going to get better, uh when someone could get better, uh and have their life prematurely ended when it's like flipping a coin, moving ahead with this at that at the current time is reckless and dangerous.

[00:07:24]>> 10 years today since the legislation passed to open up medical access uh medical assistance in dying to Canadians. More than 100,000 people who have used this to end their life. Do you support where the line is now? Um not the expansions we're talking about, but are you comfortable with where things are? Do you feel that if the Conservatives were to form government in future, that there there there there should be some backing off of where we've gotten to?

[00:07:46]>> We need to ensure that safeguards are properly enforced. There have been widely reported cases of vulnerable persons who have fallen through the cracks due to social vulnerabilities, due to a lack of adequate housing, due to other issues. And so, we need to ensure that the safeguards that are in place are adequate and that they are being consistently enforced across Canada. There's some questions about that. And we also need to see that there is better data collection, better reporting, and better monitoring. So, there's work to do.

[00:08:24]>> Okay.