Minister, I have only six minutes. I gave you time to answer it.
I wish I could say it surprises me that you think you are right, when these 32 law professors say you're wrong. They say in this letter that you're wrong.
You just indicated, Minister, that there's some kind of constitutional requirement that we do this, but two years ago, you came to this committee with what's called a charter statement. You, as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, have to certify that all government legislation is charter compliant. Your own charter analysis, speaking about mental illness, says:
...it is based on the inherent risks and complexity that the availability of MAID would present for individuals who suffer solely from mental illness. First, evidence suggests that screening for decision-making capacity is particularly difficult, and subject to a high degree of error, in relation to persons who suffer from a mental illness serious enough to ground a request for MAID. Second, mental illness is generally less predictable than physical illness in terms of the course the illness will take over time. Finally, recent experience in the few countries that permit MAID for people whose sole medical condition is a mental illness (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) has raised concerns. The concerns relate to both the increasing numbers of these cases and the wide range of mental illnesses in respect of which MAID has been provided.
This isn't the 32 professors talking. This is you. This is your charter statement.
Who are we to believe? Is it the Minister Lametti who sat in that exact chair two years ago with this charter statement or the minister who is here before us today, saying that somehow this is constitutionally required?
Have you updated your charter statement, now that we have an entirely new bill that expands MAID in Canada for those suffering with mental illness?