Mr. Chair, I'd like to move the following notice of motion:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on why or why not assisted dying should be extended to patients suffering from mental illness; and that the committee hear all relevant experts and stakeholders in order to do an in-depth study on the subject and submit its conclusions and recommendations to the House.
I am tabling this notice of motion because not long ago, the Quebec Minister of Health gave an interpretation of Justice Baudouin's decision. According to her, this decision would mean that, by removing the concept of end of life, necessarily, people suffering from mental illness could have access to medical assistance in dying. The minister suspended this expansion and said that she would wait for the results of the work of a committee in Quebec that will also look at this.
As a legislator, I could use some clarity on this. Depending on the interpretation of Justice Baudouin's decision, there could be such accessibility. As a legislator, I'm not ready to move forward. I would like to be enlightened further, and we have very little time. I don't know if you're aware of this, but it took two or three years to reach a consensus in Quebec on these issues.
At the federal level, it is the judges and the courts who are saying that we need to amend the Criminal Code and the laws to expand access to medical aid for dying. We only have four months to fix all these problems.
We deserve to hear from all stakeholders and experts on this so that we can carry out our work. In this way, if the act is revised, the process of reflection will already have begun.
Today, as a legislator, I couldn't make such a decision. This does not mean that we should not hear everyone's arguments. That is why I have split my motions. The cases to which medical assistance in dying could be extended are very broad, but we can do a study to see whether it should be extended to cases of mental illness. That's the one I'm advocating.
We could conduct work that would be complementary to the work of the committee that will have to study and amend a bill. That is why I have tabled this motion. It deserves some thought, and it would be appropriate for people working in the psychiatric field to come and testify, for example. Mental illness is often the poor relation of the health care system. People with mental illness suffer a great deal. They are suicidal and their illness goes through complex phases. Are they able to make a decision or not? Personally, I need to be enlightened about this.
I've been thinking about all these issues for 30 years and I'm having a hard time figuring them out. I imagine that some of my parliamentary colleagues will have the same difficulty as I have.
Let me repeat that the next bill should not give rise to another problem, that of imposing on vulnerable people who are suffering intolerably the burden of challenging the new law in the courts. We should not be singled out again—we legislators—because instead of taking on our responsibilities and drafting adequate laws, we are taking social problems to court.
That's why I need guidance. Our committee's work could be complementary to the work that will be undertaken to amend the act. This could be done in a short period of time.
