Evidence of meeting #102 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was illness.
A video is available from Parliament.
7:40 p.m.
Psychiatrist, As an Individual
Right now, three years is very wise.
Indeed, as I explained, it is currently very difficult to see...
7:40 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
I'm not looking for a reason. I want to know what your position is. Is it three years or indefinitely?
7:40 p.m.
Psychiatrist, As an Individual
Given the current state of science, I would say indefinitely.
7:40 p.m.
Psychiatrist, As an Individual
I understand why politicians are pushing for three years.
7:40 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
I gathered that from your speech. However, as a legislator, I wanted to ask the question.
Dr. Gaind, would you like to see a three year or an indefinite moratorium in the bill?
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
I have a point of order, Chair.
We've had an understanding in this committee for a very long time—which, I would suggest, you have historically applied very uniformly—that the witnesses have the same amount of time to answer the question as the asker of the question took, including the preliminary remarks. I would suggest to you that we keep carefully close to the time and make it fair for the witnesses so that they actually have the appropriate amount of time to answer the question, rather than continuing to allow Mr. Thériault to badger those witnesses.
If you would, sir, please make those conditions clear to all present.
7:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Colleagues and witnesses, Dr. Ellis is correct. We have adopted a procedure in this committee where the witness is allowed as much time to answer the question as the questioner takes to pose it.
By rights, I should have intervened to allow Dr. Gagnon a little more time, but I will simply ask Mr. Thériault to respect the rules that we have all played by to date.
Go ahead, Mr. Thériault.
7:45 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
My question is short and to the point: would you prefer that the provision be postponed for three years or indefinitely?
7:45 p.m.
Professor of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Thériault.
Will I have time to answer the comments he made at the beginning? He characterized a number of things about my views on the CPA and others.
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
No, not unless he allows you.
The question that he posed to Dr. Gaind did not include a two-minute preamble.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
He defamed him in front of the entire committee by saying he was an ideologue. That's unfair.
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Dr. Gaind, I expect that someone else may give you the time to address those things.
7:45 p.m.
Professor of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I'll answer the question briefly.
The three years depends on what we do with it. If we go into it with a predetermined outcome, I think that is ideology. It is not looking at whether the evidence shows us whether or not we can actually provide MAID for mental illness safely.
7:45 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you.
Dr. L'Espérance, the committee tabled its first report in February 2023. We had to look at all the possible scenarios for expanding the eligibility criteria for medical assistance in dying, and the committee made a strong majority recommendation in favour of advance requests. It may have been a good idea for the government to wait to see what could be done for people with mental disorders, but, at the last minute, it decided not to include this recommendation in Bill C‑62, whereas it included, word for word, the recommendation of the Expert Panel on Medical Assistance in Dying and Mental Illness.
Did that surprise you? How do you explain that?
Could you shed some light on how advance requests work in Quebec, so that people understand what it is all about?
7:45 p.m.
President, Association québécoise pour le droit de mourir dans la dignité
I do not understand why there is no mention now of advance requests, when the report of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying specifically made mention of it.
On the other hand, it is surprising that advance requests...
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I have a point of order.
Mr. Chair, I believe that the topic of this study we are doing tonight is the expansion of MAID for mental illness and not advance directives. I don't believe that question is germane to the conversation that we're supposed to be having tonight.
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
7:45 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
My colleague can't claim that the topic isn't germane to the conversation, when there have been motions and votes in the House to try to introduce this concept in the bill.
It seems to me that it is important to be able to talk about this as we move forward.
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you for the point of order, Mr. Doherty.
We have allowed a pretty wide latitude in terms of relevance.
I also did hear reference to advance medical directives in the course of some of the opening statements that were given. Those things, therefore, opened the door and made them fair game for questions, so Mr. Thériault's question is not out of order.
I'd like him to continue.
7:45 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to raise a point of order, with no deduction from my speaking time.
7:45 p.m.
Liberal