Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank all the witnesses for their enlightening testimony.
I will address Professor Vrakas first.
I am glad that people can advocate for better living conditions and better investment in mental health, as everyone recognizes that major investments must be made to improve accessibility to care. This has been established by the Council of Canadian Academies and by the expert panel report.
I have heard your argument and I think it needs to be taken into account, and the same goes for Professor Maher's heartfelt plea. We have heard you loud and clear.
For my part, I am not a psychiatrist. I am an MP, and I certainly don't pretend to be an ethicist. Having said that, I question what is in the expert report. This report has already been quoted and I will quote it again:
In considering MAID requests for persons who have mental disorders, it must be recognized that thoughts, plans and actions to bring about one's death may also be a symptom of the very condition which is the basis for a request for MAID.
The expert report does not deny this. It states that mental disorders induce a desire to die and that the assessor must pay close attention. The report states:
In any situation where suicidality is a concern, the clinician must adopt three complementary perspectives: consider a person's capacity to give informed consent or refusal of care, determine whether suicide prevention interventions—including involuntary ones—should be activated, and offer other types of interventions which may be helpful to the person.
Does it reassure you that the report specifies we need to be careful of this aspect? It seems that this is limited to mental disorders. Suicidal tendencies do not manifest in all cases of mental illness. Later in the report, it says that when someone is in crisis, their MAID application will not be granted.
Don't you think this report indicates that precautions should be taken?