Bill C-39

An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)

This enactment amends An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying) to delay, until March 17, 2024, the repeal of the exclusion from eligibility for receiving medical assistance in dying in circumstances where the sole underlying medical condition identified in support of the request for medical assistance in dying is a mental illness.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-39, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand to give my thoughts on Bill C-39. For those who are watching the debate today, this is the bill to amend the Criminal Code to delay, until March 17 of next year, the repeal of the exclusion from eligibility for receiving medical assistance in dying in circumstances where the sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness.

It has to be stated very clearly, because of the timeline with which we are dealing, that if this bill is not passed, the original sunset clause that was put in place by the old Bill C-7 will come into effect on March 17, which is just over a month away. It is for that reason that I will support the bill and will work with all parties to get the bill passed quickly.

Today's conversation has to happen within the context of the mental health crisis in Canada. We know and have heard, and this is not just from members of Parliament, from many advocates and stakeholders that there is an extreme lack of funding and resources. Clearly, there absolutely must be parity between physical and mental health in funding.

The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has stated in the House that Canadians should have access to timely evidence-based, culturally appropriate and trauma-informed mental health and substance use services to support their well-being. With that I agree wholeheartedly, but words are not enough. We need to see the requisite resources and funding to follow through those words.

We know that beyond the Canada mental health transfer many advocates have long been calling for legislation to enshrine in law parity between mental and physical health. I am very glad today that I am giving my speech beside the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, who is our mental health and addictions critic and who has himself tabled Motion No. 67, which calls on the government to develop that legislation and to urgently fulfill its promise to establish that Canada mental health transfer.

In my own riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, many of my fellow citizens are going through extreme struggles with the opioid crisis. They are dealing with trauma. They are dealing with underlying mental health challenges that are simply not being addressed. That is an extreme gap and the cause of an extreme amount of shame for a country as wealthy as Canada to be still having these conversations about the resources that need to be brought to bear in communities like mine.

I have been a member in the House since 2015, so this is now my third Parliament. I have been here for the entirety of the legislative journey of medical assistance in dying. I can remember Bill C-14 and the sometimes difficult debates we had in the House. That legislation was in response to the Carter decision in the Supreme Court, which basically said that to deny people this right was contrary to our charter. It therefore gave the government a timeline to address it with the appropriate legislation.

What is not often talked about with Bill C-14 is that there was a legislative requirement in that act when it received royal assent. There was a five-year statutory review of medical assistance in dying. Unfortunately, that never occurred before the government went ahead in the previous Parliament and introduced Bill C-7, which established a second track for people whose death was not reasonably foreseeable.

The context of today's speech and C-39 is the fact that we have a story here of the government in several instances putting the cart before the horse. It not only introduced Bill C-7 before a statutory review occurred, which was a requirement of Bill C-14, but it then went ahead and accepted a Senate amendment to the bill that ran contrary to its own charter statement. It did that pretty massive expansion to the law without establishing a special joint committee that was a requirement of Bill C-7.

I am intimately familiar with what this process has been because I have not only been a member of the House since 2015, I have not only participated in debate on Bill C-14 and on Bill C-7, but I have also been a member of the special joint committee, both in the previous Parliament and in this Parliament.

The message all along has been that this kind of a review should have occurred before we were dealing with a timeline crunch. It became quite obvious during the special joint committee that too many Canadians, too many professionals in our country had apprehension about mental disorders as the sole underlying medical condition for being able to access medical assistance in dying as early as next month. Hence, we have Bill C-39.

I want to go back to the original charter statement that the government released as a part of Bill C-7. That includes a number of important statements as to why the government felt, originally, that mental disorders should be excluded from accessing MAID. It did say in that charter statement that the exclusion was not based on the assumption that individuals who suffered from mental illness lacked decision-making capacity. It also said that the exclusion was also not based on a failure to appreciate the severity of the suffering that mental illness could produce. Rather, it was based on the inherent risks and complexity that the availability of MAID would present to those individuals.

First, that charter statement identified that the evidence suggested that screening for decision-making capacity was particularly difficult. It could be subject to a high degree of error. Second, the statement identified that mental illness was generally less predictable than physical illness with respect to the course that the illness may take over time. Finally, it highlighted the experience that a few of the countries that permitted MAID, namely Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, for the sole underlying medical condition of mental illness had and some of the concerns relating to the increasing number of these cases and the wide range of mental illnesses in respect to which MAID could be provided.

Again, it really highlighted the fact that precaution was the necessary mode that was required before we embarked on this path. However, the government in its wisdom decided to accept a late stage Senate amendment to the bill after the House, full of its duly elected members, had given a final vote on Bill C-7. As a member at that time, I could not bring myself to accept that Senate amendment. Therefore, I ended up voting against the final version of Bill C-7 because of that.

It also needs to be said, when we are going over the history, that the special joint committee that was a requirement of Bill C-7 got a very late start. It was first brought into being just before the summer recess in 2021. We only had a few meetings before the summer of 2021 and we had the unnecessary election, launched solely at the request of the Prime Minister, in August of that year. This completely wiped out anything that was happening during the 43rd Parliament. That Parliament ceased to exist, and all of the committees that were a part of it did as well.

The new Parliament, the 44th, reconvened later that year, but it was not until around April or May of 2022 that serious discussions started coming together and we could actually get the special joint committee reformed. Again, we have to put that in the context of the impending deadline of March 17, 2023.

An incredible amount of time was wasted, not only from an unnecessary election but also from the delays of getting that committee up and running. We had to twice request an extension of our mandate from both houses of Parliament because the timelines we had been given were completely unrealistic, not only in hearing from as wide a range as possible of witnesses but also in producing a report that would reflect the gravity of the subject matter with which we were entrusted. That has to be highlighted in the debate today on Bill C-39.

I also think it is important because there have been a few narratives around this legislation. It is important to go back to understand what the Criminal Code actually says, and also to put that in the context of the definition of irremediability.

It is important that, in order to be eligible for medical assistance in dying, a person has to meet all of the following criteria: they have to make sure that they are in fact eligible for health services in the province they reside in, they have to be at least 18 years of age and capable of making decisions with respect to their own health, they have to have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, and they have to have made a voluntary request. All these conditions must be satisfied. A person must also give informed consent to receive medical assistance in dying, after having been informed of the means available to relieve their suffering, including palliative care.

Now we get to the definition of a grievous and irremediable medical condition as outlined in the Criminal Code. A person has to meet the following criteria for that definition: it has to be a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability; they have to be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; and that illness, disease or disability, or that state of decline, has to be causing them enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable.

Those are the definitions in the Criminal Code, so despite the narratives we hear out there, those conditions must be met or the person administering MAID will have committed a crime. They will be in violation of the Criminal Code of Canada and will get the appropriate punishment as a result.

One of the difficulties is the fact that the term “irremediable” is not a medical or scientific term. It is a term that finds its definition within the Criminal Code. If we go to scientific or medical literature, it is a difficult term to define, and that, I think, is why we are seeing a lot of the apprehension around accessing MAID for mental disorders where the sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder.

Some witnesses who appeared before our committee expressed the opinion that this should not be permitted, because there cannot be any certainty with respect to the incurability of a mental disorder. However, other witnesses told us that certainty is not required and that there are ways to consider irremediability, for example by looking at the years of treatment that people have had and whether any responses of the patient have actually been positive.

We also have to understand that the respect for personal autonomy in all of this is paramount, and it is has to be a treatment that is acceptable to the individual receiving it. They not only have to express informed consent, but it has to be something acceptable to them as a person.

I now want to talk a little about the special joint committee, which I have had the honour of being a member of, as I previously mentioned.

I think it is important to underline that our committee has struggled with the question of how to balance individual autonomy with protections for the vulnerable. We were tasked with looking at five themes through the passage of Bill C-7 and the motion that guided our work from both the House of Commons and the Senate: how we institute protections for persons with disabilities; the state of palliative care in Canada; advance requests; mature minors; and, of course, the subject of today, mental disorders as a sole underlying medical condition and their eligibility with respect to applying for medical assistance in dying.

Our final report is due to be tabled in the House this Friday, February 17. We wrapped up our committee meetings last week and finally approved a draft report. That draft report, as I speak, is going to translation services so that it can be ready for tabling here in the House, and so we will be able to meet the deadline that was given to us.

Before we did that work, we had others who did some important work ahead of us. We had the expert panel that was established. They also wrestled with major concerns, such as incurability, irreversibility, capacity and suicidality, and of course the intersection between structural vulnerability, mental disorder and medical assistance in dying.

That panel report, an important precursor to our work as a special joint committee, did state that assessors in medical assistance in dying should be able to establish incurability and irreversibility with reference to treatment attempts made; the impacts of those treatments; and the severity of the illness, disease or disability. The incurability of a mental disorder cannot be established in the absence of extensive attempts at interventions with therapeutic aims.

This means that someone who has not had access to adequate care would not be eligible for MAID. Therefore, MAID could never be used as a substitute for good psychiatric care. I think that is an important thing we have to realize. There will be safeguards in place, not only with the Criminal Code, but also, we hope, with the standards of practice.

For patients who are considering this, we want to make sure that there has been a long track record of attempts to deal with their illnesses. At the same time, we have heard very clearly that there are many Canadians and many professionals who feel that additional time is needed to make sure we get this right.

One of the witnesses before our special joint committee was the chair of the Government of Quebec's Select Committee on the Evolution of the Act respecting end-of-life care. She explained that Quebec had decided that MAID for mental disorders as a sole underlying medical condition should not be permitted at this time because of the challenges of determining irremediability, as well as the lack of social consensus. Another level of government, this time the Province of Quebec, is also underlining the concerns that many members of Parliament are expressing here today.

I mentioned the final report that will be tabled in the House, but our committee did release an interim report. That interim report was specifically on this subject matter. I will read from our conclusion. It states:

We must have standards of practice, clear guidelines, adequate training for practitioners, comprehensive patient assessments and meaningful oversight in place for the case of [medical assistance in dying for mental disorders as the sole underlying medical condition]. This task will require the efforts and collaboration of regulators, professional associations, institutional committees and all levels of governments and these actors need to be engaged and supported in this important work.

Although some work is already underway to implement the recommendations of the Expert panel, there is concern that more remains to be done to ensure that all necessary steps have been taken to be ready by the March 2023 deadline...

Again, in our interim report, our special joint committee was already, at that time, expressing concern with the upcoming deadline, and I think it is a smart move that we are moving ahead with Bill C-39. If we back that up with the testimony we heard at committee, we had a number of different witnesses who clearly expressed that they had troubles with this deadline and that those standards of practice were not yet ready.

It needs to be underlined again that, if Bill C-39 is not passed, the original sunset clause of March 17 will come into effect. My vote for this bill is occurring because of that very fact. This is aside from the broader conversation we need to have about medical assistance in dying in general. It is support for a bill that is going to extend the deadline by one year so we can make sure that we get these standards of practice right, so we have the necessary time to engage with the broader community.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard some pretty wild accusations in the House today. The member for St. Albert—Edmonton suggested that it would be possible for anybody who is looking to commit suicide to be able to access medical assistance in dying. We then heard, through an exchange between him and a member from the Bloc, a completely opposite point of view on whether or not that was something that could be done.

Would the member like to weigh in on where he thinks the reality is? Is it with the member for St. Albert—Edmonton or the member for Montcalm?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I clearly outlined in my speech, the safeguards are very clearly laid out, not only in the Criminal Code, but also in what we believe the standards of practice should be, and that is going to apply to the medical community. That being said, the medical community has indicated it does need more time, hence the need for Bill C-39. I would just remind the hon. member that many stakeholders in the field of mental health have underlined the fact that the Liberal government needs to step up to the plate and increase the funding and the resources to appropriately address this major crisis happening from coast to coast to coast.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that C-39, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to the government's proposed Bill C-39, which seeks to extend the exclusion clause for those requesting MAID and whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness.

I would like to take a few moments to draw our attention to the MAID monitoring regime and what we know about MAID cases to this point.

Canadians hold personal and very strong views on medical assistance in dying. They deserve accurate and reliable information to inform their decisions and their opinions. This is why we are working to ensure that our public communications are clear and comprehensive through our annual reports.

We know that a lack of accessible information opens the door to misinformation about evolving MAID systems. To be clear, while the proposed legislation would not impact the monitoring regime directly, a year's delay could bring the added benefit of more time to collect and the ability to report on important data regarding those complex cases where death is not reasonably foreseeable.

Putting this into perspective and context, our government acknowledges the importance of the data and reporting in relation to MAID, so much so that the original 2016 legislation obligated the minister of health to collect the necessary information and report annually on MAID activity.

This formal monitoring system is important to informing our understanding in three ways: who applies for MAID in Canada, medical conditions prompting requests and trends in MAID cases since the 2016 legislation.

As such, we have been working in collaboration with provinces and territories, as well as other health care partners, to ensure a robust monitoring system. It is important to understand that this is a significant, collaborative commitment.

Let us begin with a glimpse into what we know right now. As of December 31, 2021, there had been a total of 31,664 MAID deaths in Canada. This is the total number of MAID deaths since the law permitting medical assistance in dying passed in 2016.

MAID deaths represent 3.3% of all deaths in Canada as of 2021. This is very much in line with jurisdictions that have MAID regimes similar to Canada's.

The proportion of all deaths attributed to MAID varies across the country, with the highest rates reported in Quebec and British Columbia, and lower rates in the remaining provinces and territories.

Conditions include multiple comorbidities, cardiovascular disease, organ failure and respiratory illnesses.

Although the current sample is small, 2021 data also shows that, where death was not reasonably foreseeable, 50% of individuals were approved for MAID, compared to 81% of cases where death was foreseeable.

Each MAID request where the person's natural death is not reasonably foreseeable is complex and unique, and early indicators show that approvals for MAID in this stream are much lower than when the person's death is reasonably foreseeable, 50% versus 81%.

The assessment process for a person whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable is often much more challenging due to the nature and complexity associated with medical conditions of this population. These assessments require detailed clinical analysis of each one of the elements of the eligibility criteria, which define a grievous and irremediable medical condition.

Let us spend a little bit of time talking about the human aspect of this data collection.

We should acknowledge that behind every data element in our annual report is, indeed, a human story. Implicated in each case is a group of people, their families, MAID assessors and providers, health care teams, and most importantly, the person making the request for MAID. The data we collect comes from thoughtful and compassionate conversations involving people who are making the most important decision of their lives and the MAID practitioners. The practitioners are responsible for assessing the requester in accordance with the person's wishes and the law. Through these discussions and the recording of information arising from them, we have a robust monitoring and reporting system for MAID in Canada.

MAID practitioners must ensure that every requester is aware of the services available that might relieve their suffering. This includes exploring treatment options, facilitating referrals and following up on the outcomes. When faced with a MAID request where death is not reasonably foreseeable, assessors spend much more time gathering the necessary information about the person and their condition. The process often involves a review of many years of treatments, surgeries and/or medications, as well as consultation with one or more experts in order to exercise due diligence in making a decision regarding eligibility.

New regulations for the monitoring of medical assistance in dying came into force on January 1 of this year. The MAID monitoring system will report on an expanded set of MAID data points that are collected according to these new regulations. The additional information should provide a greater understanding of persons applying for MAID whose natural deaths are not reasonably foreseeable, as well as their associated circumstances.

In conclusion, we are committed to transparency and accountability across all levels of government to ensure public confidence in the MAID regime. We are honouring this commitment by providing Canadians with accurate and reliable information on MAID as it continues to evolve in this country.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was very surprised listening to my colleague talking about the numbers they have. In 2016 there were 1,200 cases of MAID. That doubled in 2017 and doubled again in 2018. It was over 10,000 in 2021. That is nearly 30 people dying in this country every single day. That is more than double all the deaths from breast cancer or all the suicides in this country. We were promised a process to make sure we were not implementing a regime that was doing this without really strong checks and balances.

I find it staggering that the member could say this thing is working when we see such massive increases, much higher than in Europe or anywhere else, in medically assisted death in this country.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me clarify and reiterate what I said in my intervention. I talked about the total number of MAID-related deaths in 2021 being 10,950, of which 2% related to MAID for individuals whose deaths were not reasonably foreseeable. The numbers the member is quoting might be accurate, but that was not the point I was trying to make. As I also indicated, the total was nearly 30,000 since 2016, when the legislation came into force.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to follow up on the statistics my hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay pointed out from across the way. They are staggering. When we begin to consider them, it should cause all Canadians to pause, reflect and say that the legitimate concerns many of us raised in this House when this was first proposed continue to this day. There are inadequate safeguards in place to protect those who are struggling with mental illness and have other ailments in their lives that have challenged them for a particular season. MAID opens the door to a decision of such finality that it can cause grave consequences for many Canadians and their families.

What safeguards are going to be put in place to stop this from being abused any further?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I do not think that MAID has been abused, especially as it relates to mental health. As I intervened, I lost my father to cancer back in 2016. At that time I wished the MAID option were available to us. Having said that, we have felt in our government that the base of 219 cases is not representative enough of the data that we want. We want to ensure that the safeguards we should have are in place and strengthened. This is the fundamental reason that we are extending the timeline by a year and introducing this bill. If this bill is to protect those individuals who are dealing with mental illness, then they need all the supports to be able to make that decision.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member about what further things we need to be considering and thinking about. Could he elaborate a bit more on what he thinks are the most important factors that we need to be thinking about in this place as we consider this legislation?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, aside from the timeline that we have set to make sure that we have more data to be able to analyze the situation, it is also important to work with the provinces and territories to ensure that they have the processes, guidelines and support system they need. Then they can help those individuals who are in the process of making that decision to receive the support they need to come to the right decision.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I support this legislation putting a one-year hold on allowing MAID for mental illness.

We need to hold off on this until we have a broader consensus as to if and how we are going to do this. We need more safeguards in place. If we are going to do this, we need to make sure that we do it right. I do not think that we ought to have an automatic start date in one year as is planned.

To be clear, yes, I support this legislation in that MAID for mental illness will not be allowed beginning in March. However, from my perspective, we ought to make this hold indefinite. I know there are a lot of people out there who are really worried about this legislation because they have loved ones who are going through a hard time and they think, probably rightly, that some of those people will want to access MAID.

There are parents, siblings, partners, spouses and friends who are worried. Parents touch my heart the most because they are worried that the lives of their children could be affected. I can certainly sympathize with this because I have six children of my own. One does not have to be a parent to realize that almost everyone goes through a difficult time at some point in their life, hence our concern.

I know there are also a lot of psychiatrists out there who are really worried about this. There are psychiatrists who know that if their patients were to have more treatment, they would probably get better, but they are requesting MAID at this time.

Both these groups have legitimate concerns about this legislation. At the moment, I do not think the safeguards are in place, and if implemented now, the law would end up affecting a lot of people in a way that was not intended.

What is the intention of the law? I would submit that the intention of MAID for mental illness is that it should only apply to a very small group of hard-core cases. This seems to be the case in Holland, where only one in a thousand people, I am told, who apply for MAID for mental illness are actually granted it.

It is not intended for a 25-year-old who was abused as a child and has had intermittent depression ever since. It is not intended for the 30-something-year-old who remains depressed a couple years after the breakup of a marriage. It is not intended for somebody who is schizophrenic and is fine on their medication, but having stopped their medication, now wants to access MAID.

Some out there may say, “Why not? It should be the individual's choice”. As a teenager, I read Jean-Paul Sartre, and at the time, I agreed with him that the ultimate choice in life is being over nothingness. Perhaps I still agree with this. However, neither suicide nor attempted suicide is illegal in Canada. The question today is what role, if any, the state has in assisting suicide.

I worked a lot of years as an emergency room doctor, and I saw many people who were suicidal. My job was to assess whether people were suicidal, and if they were, to bring them into the hospital even if it was against their will. The law gave me the power to do so.

Many people would ask what right I have to tell someone what to do with their body and say that it should be their own choice. My response to them is that I think there are two legitimate reasons for the state intervening to prevent suicide.

One is in order to protect people from themselves. When someone is in the depths of depression, they do not see a light at the end of the tunnel. They cannot contemplate the possibility, let alone the probability, that they are going to get better. That is the nature of depression. That is what makes someone suicidal. Most of us know that, eventually, with a change of circumstances and enough time, people actually do get better.

The other legitimate reason for the state to interfere is to protect loved ones. A person who commits suicide is dead; they feel no pain. However, the loved ones continue to live the rest of their lives with the anguish of losing someone, often haunted by feelings that perhaps it was because of something they did or did not do.

The suicidal individual's inability to appreciate the possibility that they might get better should certainly make us reluctant to allow MAID for people with mental illnesses. Some people would ask whether there are people who really will not get better and who are irremediable. That is the requirement of law: The illness has to be irremediable.

The problem with that is that doctors are not really good at determining who is irremediable. Doctors do not have a crystal ball that can predict the future. In fact, studies show that doctors are not good at determining who is irremediable.

A recently published study by Nicolini et al. looked at clinicians' ability to determine irremediability for treatment-resistant depression. It reviewed 14 different studies. I will cite its conclusion: “Our findings support the claim that, as per available evidence, clinicians cannot accurately predict long-term chances of recovery in a particular patient with [treatment-resistant depression]. This means that the objective standard for irremediability cannot be met”. Furthermore, there are no current evidence-based or established standards of care for determining irremediability of mental illness for the purpose of MAID assessments.

As a long-time doctor, I find it absolutely mind-boggling that there are practitioners out there who are willing to administer MAID to someone knowing that perhaps with a bit of extra time the person would have gotten better. Good doctors worry about making mistakes. Good doctors do not want to kill off their patients. It seems to me that if there is even one person who is administered MAID and who, if they had not been given MAID, would have gone on to a happy life, that is a horrific tragedy. I would say it is something akin to capital punishment when it turns out the person was actually not guilty of the crime. If this happens, it is certainly on the conscience of every one of us in this place.

The number of people we can confidently say are irremediable is probably small. Some would say no, but I would offer a few comments. One is that anyone under 40 should never be considered irremediable, and in fact anyone under 60, unless they have had ongoing years of illness. I would also suggest that somebody who has not tried every kind of treatment and has not seen a lot of doctors and therapists should not be considered irremediable. Who is left? Perhaps if there is some 75-year-old who has no family and who has undergone many years of illnesses, tried every sort of treatment available and seen numerous doctors and no one can help, then maybe, and I emphasize the “maybe”, they should be considered for this.

Do I believe that the law, as implemented now, would really be confined to that small number of cases? No, absolutely not. Like a lot of members, I have been paying attention to the media and have heard of the many cases where we are just left shaking our heads that somebody would allow MAID for that. The reality is that there are a lot of practitioners out there with a very liberal approach to allowing medical assistance in dying, who seem to be willing to base it on perhaps just a phone call, practitioners who do not think it is necessary to talk to the family, to get to know the patient, or to consult someone who knows the patient.

Some people will say that the decision about standards of care and safeguards should be left to the colleges of physicians and surgeons. As a 35-year member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, I totally disagree with that. This is not the kind of decision that is normally left to the colleges, nor should it be; this is the kind of decision that should be left to the elected representatives, who in turn are accountable to the people.

In summary, if we are going to allow medical assistance in dying for mental illness, it should be to an exceedingly limited number of people. If we were to implement the law as it is now, I think a lot of people would be getting it whom the law was not really intended for, nor do I think we are that close, so I think there should be no fixed date on which this law comes into effect. When are we going to know we are ready to do this? I would suggest it would be when there is some consensus from the psychiatric community. From all the surveys I have seen, the majority of psychiatrists are against this, which is certainly one indicator.

We need to take however much time is necessary to do this right. This is not like other decisions made by the House of Commons. If we mistakenly take a life, all of the politicians in this room, all of the bureaucrats in Ottawa and all of the Supreme Court justices cannot bring that life back.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my hon. colleague's perspective. I heard a lot about the intention, and sometimes we have intention versus impact, so I am curious what he thinks the impact would be of just extending the deadline, as opposed to actually throwing out the legislation or supporting Bill C-314.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question before us now is really the coming date for implementation, which is mid-March. The intention of the legislation right now is to give us more time, and that is entirely appropriate.

We pride ourselves on making our decisions based on evidence. If we are going to make decisions based on evidence, then this certainly has to be given more time, which means that there has to be a delay on this so that it does not come into effect in March. What comes after is for us to determine. I personally think there ought to be indefinite time until we get this right.