Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62  Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that, one day, it will be possible to alleviate the suffering of people struggling with an irremediable mental disorder. I would also like to know whether he agrees that it would have been wiser for the government to implement the joint committee's leading recommendation regarding advance requests and to take advantage of the introduction of this bill to add that component.

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62  Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer one aspect of my question. Why the double standard? The minister had a full year to implement the recommendation of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying concerning advance requests. An Ipsos poll of 3,500 people showed 85% support across Canada.

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62  Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer to the question posed by my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord is inadequate. Yes, in 2021, Quebec ruled on the issue before the report of the expert panel on mental illness was published. However, the minister had a year to implement the most widely held recommendation of the special joint committee on medical assistance in dying concerning advance requests.

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62  Madam Speaker, since 2015, every time we have addressed medical assistance in dying in the House, it has been blocked by the Conservatives. I understand that my colleague is not happy about it. He tells me that everyone has a right to their own opinion. The Conservatives' opinion is very much based on the views of religious right-wing voters.

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62  Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about how the work is organized. In Quebec City, parliamentary committees are rigorously organized. Witnesses are not invited for just five minutes of speeches with three or four other panellists at a meeting where sometimes there are not even any questions because the witnesses are of no interest to the party in question.

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62  Madam Speaker, I am not so sure about the wording of that question. It is up to the patient to make the request, but it is not the patient who ultimately decides. The decision is made by the assessors, the treatment team as well as a psychiatrist who is independent of the treatment team and independent of the person who will carry out the procedure.

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62  Madam Speaker, perhaps the interpretation was not accurate, because what I said is that the suicidal state is reversible and that all experts agree on this, whether they are for or against expanding medical assistance in dying to cover mental disorders. It is reversible. People need to stop fearmongering.

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62  Madam Speaker, that is precisely why I am saying that the government lacks courage. Faced with the political rhetoric machine, the government thinks it is better to backtrack, knowing full well that, by postponing this until 2027, it is quite possible that the same government will not be deciding what to do about mental disorders.

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62  Madam Speaker, I have already answered my colleague's question. What I told him and I will say it again is that the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying sat for too little time. I would have liked to be able to question the people who wrote that letter to get them to support my position, which is that decisions cannot be forever.

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62  Madam Speaker, it would have been good if my colleague could have sat with us on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. I think she is confusing two things. Just because a person requests MAID does not mean that they will be eligible to receive it, and all of the experts, whether they are in favour of MAID or not, have said that a suicidal state is reversible.

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62  Madam Speaker, let us try to calm down a bit. In this debate, the government is basing itself on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying for its amendment to Bill C‑62. The Bloc Québécois would have liked to lend its support. The problem is that we believe that we should not indefinitely delay the possibility of medical assistance in dying for people with an irremediable mental disorder, when no psychiatrist worth their salt has been able to treat them or relieve their suffering.

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62  Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, who sits with me at the Standing Committee on Health, I invite him to reread the expert report. Honestly, when I heard him talking in his speech about people with mental disorders being put to death by the state, I thought that was utterly outrageous.

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62  Madam Speaker, when it comes to MAID, this government is not exactly a shining example of proactivity. After the Carter decision, it took a long time for the government to table a half-decent bill. Bill C‑14 was pretty worthless. It was a poor imitation of the Quebec legislation and was far from addressing the crux of the Carter decision.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, it has been a year since the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying recommended allowing advance requests. That was what the vast majority of the committee members wanted. We need to allow advance requests for people who are suffering from conditions like dementia and Alzheimer's.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, medical assistance in dying is a matter of freedom of choice. The Liberals should understand that. The role of the state is to guarantee the conditions for exercising a free and informed choice. Those who do not want medical assistance in dying do not need to apply for it.