Debates of Feb. 15th, 2023

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, first, I sincerely appreciate the incredible passion the member has demonstrated in his speech. I congratulate him for relaying that in such a passionate manner to the House. Second, I certainly take great opportunity to reflect on this legislation and the issue before us, so I do not want the member to think there are not members of the Liberal bench who are always highly concerned over the manner in which this medical procedure would be used.

Finally, I am unsure exactly what the member is asking when he makes a plea to Liberal backbenchers, in his terms. The whole point of this extension is to make sure that everything that would be put in place would be done in a responsible and appropriate manner.

By the member's own admission, he is voting in favour of this extension. Therefore, what is it, exactly, that the member is asking? Is he asking for something that is supposed to happen a year from now?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to clarify a key point, which is that I do not believe that mental health sickness should be a reason for someone to receive MAID in Canada. The legislation before us today would delay the ability of medical professionals to offer MAID on the basis of mental health sicknesses. I do not want to see my country ever reach that point. Therefore, in the year ahead, I implore the Liberal members of Parliament to challenge their justice minister, because I know, and they know, that the large majority of Canadians are against this.

In fact, I did a survey in my community. While my community was equally divided on MAID in general, there was unanimity among all of my constituents that, at a minimum, proper medical supports and mental health supports should be offered to all people irrespective of their medical conditions, and especially for those considering the use of MAID.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I will admit that my hon. colleague kind of stole my thunder, because I was going to ask a bit about what his constituents were saying.

However, I am wondering if there were any responses that particularly stood out. As I understood his last comment, he said that it was about fifty-fifty on the issue of medical assistance in dying, generally. However, it sounds like there was near unanimity from his constituents, and obviously on a moral issue he has to bear that in mind. I wonder if the member wants to take 30 to 45 seconds of this important time in the House on this very important topic to elaborate on that.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is from Canada's number two riding, after my riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. I will note that, under the proposed redistribution boundaries, he is going to take part of Canada's number one riding, which I am very sad to see.

However, to the member's point, my constituents believe that we, as a country as rich and prosperous as Canada is, should be offering the medical treatment to allow people to make informed decisions about their lives, especially when they are most vulnerable. Right now, we are not there. I could [Technical difficulty—Editor] for example in my community, that a woman decided to receive MAID because she felt she was a burden on society, in Abbotsford, and did not have access to adequate housing. Where are we as a country and a society when we are permitting the death of an—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I apologize to the hon. member, but his sound is very unstable. I think we are having issues with interpretation. We are running out of time also, but the last bit was a bit unstable. It was very difficult to understand all the sentences, and we are out of time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, especially when we are talking about something that is really quite critical and that is quite important to a number of people in the House.

This is an issue that really tugs at the heartstrings of a number of Canadians. My hope, and what I have seen so far, is that we can have a rational debate on this issue. What we are debating in this bill is the one-year postponement, putting it in my words, of the provision of medical assistance in dying to people who are suffering solely from mental illness. It is also intertwined with the greater question of what we, as Canadians, should be doing. If there is no other place that we should be debating this, it is right here.

I want to reflect a little bit on how we got here and also where I anticipated we might go, based both on what materials have been provided to the Minister of Justice and what the government has put out through its charter statement.

It was not that long ago that I was in high school. Maybe it was a while back, 1993, if I recall.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I thank the hon. member for being honest.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands commended me for my honesty. I appreciate that. I like to think I am always honest in this place.

In 1993, if memory serves, we had the Rodriguez case. I am probably simplifying this, but that was a question on the right to die. It was a five-four split, but the Supreme Court of Canada said that there was no charter basis for that decision. It has been a while since I reviewed that in depth, but that is my recollection.

We fast-forward 22 years to the Carter decision in 2015, which came to the opposite conclusion. That case, I believe, was a per curiam decision for the court, which means that all nine justices found that the prohibition did offend the charter. The question that often comes to the House after that occurs is how Parliament should respond. I was not here then. I got here in 2021. Being here has been 18 of the best months of my life.

I can say that, from 2015 to 2023, we have seen a dramatic shift in what seemed to be envisioned both in the legal community and in the Canadian community at large, that change from medical assistance in dying for people who had irremediability, a terminal condition or a condition that was not going to get better, with death being foreseeable. My understanding when I was growing up, and it was an issue when I was in high school and university, was that this was really at the crux of the issue. Should somebody who is terminally ill have a right to euthanasia? That is how we framed it.

I am going to go to the minister's charter statement, dated October 21, 2020. I am going to note that I am not sure whether or not a charter statement has been provided for Bill C-39. I was with the minister at committee yesterday and no charter statement had been provided, so here we are debating a bill on a very serious issue, and we do not have a charter statement.

I am looking at everybody on the government benches. There are a couple of people here on the opposition benches as well. I hope we can all agree that not having a charter statement, which is supposed to accompany legislation like this, is a problem. What is adding to that problem is that, when the minister was asked about that by one of my colleagues yesterday, there was no definitive answer. He was asked where the charter statement is and when it is coming.

We are being asked to decide on this issue inside of what I would call a legal vacuum, where we do not even know what department officials think about this proposed legislation. I would hope, and I would think, that all of my colleagues believe that to be a problem.

The charter statement on Bill C-7 was tabled on October 21, 2020. This was before the legislation was amended by the Senate. On page 7 of 18, the charter statement says, “While expanding eligibility for MAID to include people whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, the Bill would exclude individuals whose sole medical condition is a mental illness.” On the next page it continues, “In particular, the exclusion would apply only to mental illness”.

Further on, it says:

The exclusion is not based on the assumption that individuals who suffer from mental illness lack decision-making capacity and would not disqualify such individuals from eligibility...if they otherwise meet the requirements, for example, if they have another medical condition that is considered to be a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability. Nor is the exclusion based on a failure to appreciate the severity of the suffering that mental illness can produce.

This is the key part:

Rather, 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.... Second, mental illness is generally less predictable than physical illness in terms of the course the illness will take over time.

These are static points, and by that I mean these things will not change with time. It is not like in 2020 there were inherent risks and complexity of judging MAID for people who suffer from mental illness, but now it has changed. We asked the minister about this, as I recall, yesterday. In any event, the minister has not articulated, and the government has not articulated, what changed. Either the charter statement was wrong, or something changed.

Neither has been put forward before the House. How is that possible? Was the charter statement wrong, or have the inherent risks and complexity changed? Has the predictability of mental illness over the course of time changed, or was the charter statement wrong? These are questions that, in my view, the minister has to answer.

One of the more difficult things we discussed yesterday at committee with the minister happened when one of my hon. colleagues asked him about a letter that was written by 32 academics. These are not insignificant people. I know some of these 32 law professors. The minister was asked flat out by the member for Fundy Royal if the professors were right, or if the minister was right. The minister said he was right.

I am going to list a few of these 32 professors, because the hon. minister has said that they are wrong. There is Archibald Kaiser, professor of law in the department of psychiatry at Dalhousie; Tess Sheldon, from the faculty of law at the University of Windsor; Elizabeth Sheehy; Brandon Trask; Brian Bird, a friend of mine who clerked at the Supreme Court of Canada and did his thesis on conscience rights for a Ph.D. in law; Janine Benedet, who I have heard speak to issues that relate to sexual assault; and one of my very good friends, Dr. Ruby Dhand. I am going to give her a few props here. She had five degrees by her 34th birthday. Professor Dhand is one of the smartest and most brilliant people I know.

The minister told us yesterday that he is right and these people are wrong. They wrote a letter saying that what the government is saying is the case with MAID, that it is rooted in Canadian law, is just simply not accurate. That is what they said. Who is wrong: them or him?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am quite concerned about the way my colleague has framed this issue. The issue of MAID for mental health as the sole underlying condition was resolved two years ago. An expert panel reported in the middle of last year with some recommendations. There has also been extensive work by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, which that was tabled today, and I think all of the evidence suggests that we are ready to move forward on MAID for mental health as the sole underlying condition, however there is a need to ensure that additional safeguards are in place.

I am wondering if my friend could comment on the role of the expert panel and its recommendations in this regard.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will address the member saying that this was resolved two years ago. Two years ago would have made it February 15, the day after Valentine's Day, 2021. This charter statement was tabled in the House October 21, 2020. Was this issue resolved mere months after this charter statement? I get it. Reasonable people can disagree sometimes, and we talk about expert panels.

I will say this much. This letter to the minister, led by Trudo Lemmens, was tabled February 2, 2023. These are serious concerns. When there are serious concerns about an issue this significant, we should not be saying we are pressing on in one year. We should be giving this more thought.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, who often speaks in this place about the need for justice and the need to ensure that those who are left behind actually get support.

I often find myself thinking about solutions. New Democrats have tabled solutions to fix one of the core drivers of the mental health crisis in Canada, which is poverty. Poverty is one of the greatest contributors to the mental health crisis in this country. We have tabled solutions, and I understand the Conservatives may disagree with some of those solutions. One of them is the guaranteed livable basic income.

Could the member, given the kind of description of the problems of poverty and the effects it has on mental health, offer at least one solution so those who are struggling to pay their rent and struggling to pay for their groceries can ensure that they get that kind of support? Could the member elaborate on that?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's intervention. I have been here 18 months, and it has been a pleasure to get to know him over that time.

My hon. colleague may not know this, but my wife, as a clinical lawyer, helps the most down-and-out people. She is somebody I consider an expert in this field, helping out people and giving them legal advice for the greatest issues. They are often the most poor, and one of the things she relates to me is that one of the contributors is actually trauma. That is one of the greatest issues when it comes to mental health as well. It is trauma.

I am not going to discount poverty. We, as Conservatives, talk about poverty every day in this place when we talk about the impact of inflation on poverty. If we really want to talk about this, we should talk about the government not legislating mandatory minimums for sexual offences. That is where trauma comes from. I hope, when we do speak about these things, that my colleague joins me. I look forward to chatting more about extinguishing poverty with him.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about the charter and how every single piece of legislation is supposed to be complying with it. He mentioned that, at the justice committee, they did not have information about whether this particular piece of legislation was charter compliant. I want to give him the extra time to go over the matter just so the House can be well briefed on the current situation with Bill C-39.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, we do not have a charter statement and we should. It is my understanding that, even when a bill is revised, there should be a charter statement. With Bill C-7, we had an initial charter statement. It came back from the Senate, and there is no new charter statement. The charter statement we are left with is pre-amendment. That is a problem, and if we couple that with the lack of a charter statement in the House, we are left with a huge problem.

In my view, the law is to be followed and there should be a charter statement. We should be following that. I wish we had it. We should have it.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, we are here for what is really such a deeply personal and complex discussion on Bill C-39. I want to start by saying the discussion tonight is about Bill C-39, and it has been the discussion here for the last few nights. I say this because some time ago, and I believe it was in November, we had a one-night discussion in the House, a take-note debate on mental health, in which I participated. Frankly, there were very few participants in that debate. A number of colleagues were here for that.

However, the discussion tonight is not about mental health. It is about Bill C-39, the legislation before us, to delay the implementation of MAID as it pertains to mental illness by a year. The core of the crux is that there is a mental health literacy discussing this problem in the chamber, and perhaps even across the country.

I want to start by saying what mental health is and what it is not. Mental health is really, at its core, in the day-to-day for all Canadians and all of us in the House, who work really hard and have stress for ourselves and our constituents. We have been going through a really challenging time these last two plus years through COVID.

Mental health is the ability to navigate and recover from a challenging situation and to be able to move forward with a sense of self. It does not mean that when we are stressed, when we have anxiety or when we are facing a tough period where there may be ebbs and flows of depression, we are struggling from mental illness. That is mental health.

We really need to start the conversation there. Truthfully, for any human being, and I have two teenage daughters, day-to-day things are up and down. We are not meant to always be happy all the time. We are not always meant to be in a positive state of being. There are ebbs and flows to life, just as there are for every Canadian across this country. Having two teenage daughters, I am sure many colleagues in the House can relate.

The truth of the matter is that mental health is not the opposite of mental illness. When I talk about people being diagnosed with a mental illness, I mean people who are diagnosed by a physician, which means a psychiatrist, a medical professional who is familiar with the categorizations of diagnosis under the DSM-5.

There are individuals with mental illness who are treated for it who have good mental health. Can members imagine that? One can have good mental health while one struggles through mental illness. That is a reality for many, many individuals who deal with mental illness. About 15% to 20% are medically diagnosed with mental illness.

There is a mental health crisis for many Canadians in this country, with many social determinants, whether it be poverty, housing or inflation, that are impacting the mental health of many Canadians, but they are not struggling with mental illness. I really feel strongly that is where we need to start the discussion.

Bill C-39 is not about mental health. Bill C-39 is about mental illness and those who have struggled with mental illness who have been presented treatment after treatment, have tried everything imaginable to address their suffering, and have not found relief. They have not been able to find that ebb and flow of life many of us experience in mental health. We need to acknowledge that.

I heard a lot of disturbing statements in the House, such as this legislation being euthanasia or medical treatment by death. Shame on them for disparaging the DSM categorizations of medical professionals and using fast and loose language in the House on what is a profoundly serious categorization of suffering for individuals in this country.

Frankly, this is a hard issue. MAID is a hard issue for so many of us. It is so hard for us to know people we love may be suffering from a disorder or a terminal condition there is no relief from.

I want to move now into what Bill C-39 is, because we need to go over that.

Bill C-39 is asking for a year. It is asking for a year to pause on allowing for mental illness as the sole determinant for an individual requesting MAID, so that it can be reviewed and so that it can be put into place well. What do we mean by “well”? We have a health care crisis in this country. We have gone through two years of COVID. Doctors, nurses and health care practitioners are exhausted, and they need to be trained on this. They need to understand the DSM-5. They need to understand what the treatment protocols are for those who suffer with mental illness. We are not there yet. We want to ensure that the best practices are in place, and done with compassion and with a deep sensitivity for the individual suffering.

It is about the individual. Many of us in the House have beliefs, which may be religious beliefs or personal beliefs, about how they feel about MAID in general or how they feel about MAID in relation to this particular categorization of mental illness. At the end of the day, it is about the individual. It is not about us. It is about them. We need to remember who is at the core of this legislation and why it has been put forward, and the compassion and time that have been put in by medical experts. One can present me with one panel or another panel. At the heart of this is human suffering. I would not wish on anyone in the House to know what it is to have a loved one who suffers from mental illness, because I did.

I had a 15-year-old nephew who suffered from mental illness. Every treatment was offered to him, every treatment, and he refused. I lost my nephew to suicide, not because we did not have hope, not because there were no resources, not because we did not try, but because everything that was put on the table, and trust me, I am a fierce mama, did not help him. I have to live with that loss, and the grief of that loss, of his choice. He did not make his choice in a medically assisted format. He chose suicide. We need to understand the difference.

Why do I share this? I share it because this is a personal issue. I also have a dear friend who had ALS. She suffered for years, but we put into place protocols for her so that when she knew it was enough, we would be by her side in her choice. There were friends who did not show up for her choice. There were many of us who debated about her choice, that it was gut-wrenching. Each step of the way, we had check-ins with her, even when she could only communicate through her eyelids. Was she sure that this was what she wanted? Was she ready? It was heartbreaking to leave that room that day, but it was her choice.

At the core of this, as hard as it is for members of this House to understand, it is about the individual. We have an obligation to provide every guardrail to every professional framework that is caring and compassionate, and that is why we need time to build it and set it out.

At the end of the day, these are professionals. This is mental illness. To the degree that individuals are suffering at that level, one should never have to watch individuals suffer to that degree.

Even if they go and ask for it from their psychiatrist, even if they are contemplating this, that is the beginning of the process. It is not an automatic decision. Then, their entire history of treatment needs to be reviewed, every protocol questioned. Every stone needs to be turned and reviewed by another professional. This is not even sober second thought, as we would have in the Senate. This is sober after sober after sober, three times, four times, five times, until every check has been done with the individual who is truly suffering.

I want to get out of the speak of professionals and all of that because at the core of this is the human being who is suffering. We need to know our language and be clear about that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague's very thoughtful speech, except there is one thing that still concerns me. I will paraphrase, because I was not taking notes as she spoke, but it was something like “once a patient who is suffering has tried everything”. My concern is that as long as we block access to psilocybin, as one example, or other therapies and treatments that could make a difference, I do not think we have tried everything.

That is why I am very relieved we have another year, and I hope my hon. colleague would agree that we need to use that year well, including accelerating research into other promising therapies.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and I talk about many things with such thoughtfulness and care.

I can only speak at the moment to the current available treatments that are out there. I know some of the treatments that the member mentioned are in great debate and great discussion at this time. The point is why we are asking for time. We are asking for time for exactly that reason, so that we understand the depth of the treatments and the options, to make sure that we are not missing anything before we allow this to go forward.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I had the wonderful privilege of welcoming the member for York Centre to my community in Iqaluit and we had a wonderful time there.

I want to ask the member a specific question about the “Final Report of the Expert Panel on MAiD and Mental Illness”, from May 2022, because I really appreciated the refocus on mental illnesses. In that report, “mental illness” is said to be for those who are “lack[ing] a standard clinical definition”. My concern is that there are a lot of first nations, Métis and Inuit who might not fit into this professional model. This panel recognized it as well and, in recommendation 14, said that there need to be consultations with first nations, Métis and Inuit on creating practice standards.

I wonder if the member could share her thoughts on that.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Nunavut always reminds us how important it is to make sure that in all of our consultations, no matter what the issue is, whether it is climate change, indigenous early learning, or mental health and health care in indigenous communities, the indigenous lens on health care must be included.

Communities handle the care of their loved ones differently. There are diagnostic tools that are available from many different backgrounds and communities that weigh in on such decisions that we make as a country. I would welcome the member sharing her thoughts with me on what we should be considering in that discussion.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is one thing from the other side that I find confusing. They can correct me if they wish, but they seem to be saying that if in fact a year from now we allow mental illness as a sole reason for medically assisted death, those people would not be suicidal. By the very definition of medically assisted suicide, or MAID, that person is suicidal.

If we now allow mental illness as a sole reason for MAID, are we not making suicide easier?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is exactly the reason why mental health literacy is so important, because those who suffer with mental illness are not necessarily, by default, suicidal. I would be more than happy to educate the member on the determinants of that.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-39 this evening. As a legislator and member of Parliament for Lévis—Lotbinière since 2006, I have been told about, and sometimes even witnessed, some very difficult situations involving people or families in distress.

On May 3, 2016, in the House, I allowed myself the privilege of expressing the thoughts sent to me at the time by several of my constituents during the sensitive debate on MAID. It is a topic that leaves no one indifferent.

I want to emphasize that, regardless of their political allegiance or their position on this issue, all parliamentarians are once again demonstrating courage by taking part in this debate, which is difficult for all of us.

The Supreme Court gave members of Parliament the daunting task and responsibility of setting the foundations of a law. This forced us to do some soul-searching about the purpose of our lives and the lives of the citizens we represent. We were aware that the law as a whole would not be perfect, that it would merely be acceptable, given all the changes it made to our way of seeing life and living in the future.

It is always a great privilege for me and a sign of undeniable trust when people share heartfelt confidences with me, especially when they deal with matters of life and death. The expansion of MAID to people with mental health disorders definitely falls into that category. I see parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters and friends worried about the expansion of the MAID legislation. When we stop and think about it, obviously we all want to keep our loved ones with us as long as possible.

Surprisingly, however, many of the discussions I have had with my constituents have revealed another very important issue that can cause mental health problems. I am talking about how the Liberals have trivialized the consequences of cannabis use, even though they knew the extent of the consequences when legalization was studied in committee. Several studies confirmed that use in adolescence would cause mental health challenges for those who already had a genetic predisposition.

We were promised that a lot of money would be invested in programs for people grappling with that addiction, as well as mental health services. Unfortunately, given the challenges that already exist across Canada in terms of access to regular health care, we suspected that specialized mental health care would be inaccessible and insufficient for Canadians. Therein lies the rub. One can easily imagine what will happen when hard drugs are legalized in Canada, again by the Liberal legacy that is destroying the Canada we once knew.

I would like to share that I will soon be a grandfather for a sixth time. I am obviously very happy, but I am also very concerned about our Canada, which has been deteriorating by the day since 2015. Canada is deeply broken, and millions of Canadians are suffering because of the erosion of their sense of security and quality of life.

I would like to use the time that I have to speak to Bill C-39 as an opportunity for honest reflection. As members no doubt know, humans need to give meaning to their lives to fully appreciate all the good things life has to offer. It is human nature to seize the best opportunities we get to enjoy life. However, what do we do when the government takes away those opportunities by implementing policies that go against our well-being and we lose faith and hope in the future?

Is it right for us, in the near future or the next few years, to allow people with mental health challenges to put an end to their lives, when they might have a better quality of life if we were to give them ways to fix what is going wrong and more resources so that they could find balance in their everyday lives?

I think the public is aware that nothing is working anymore and that we are living the opposite of what we are used to in so many aspects of our lives.

In spite of that, we must not see the future as inevitable. There are always solutions, and, as fragile as life may be, we have the privilege of sharing love and friendship. We can strengthen our bonds and help one another.

Our society is constantly changing. It shapes our fundamental, cultural, religious and spiritual values when it comes to life and the end of life. What was personally unacceptable yesterday may change tomorrow. We need to respect one another here, because we all have a say in this Parliament. That being said, the end-of-life choice that is acceptable to the individual is based on their convictions, their beliefs, their physical health and perhaps, ultimately, their mental health.

We have to be careful about that fourth point, mental health, because when it comes to care and scientific advances, we are still making progress. Who knows if we will find drugs that open up new possibilities for people who currently do not see any solutions?

We are faced with the same question we had to answer when the initial law was drafted in 2016: How can we ensure that this will not get out of control? It will be difficult to include safeguards in the law that will cover all of the very different cases of people with mental health issues.

I think it is wise to make the right choices for Canadians' safety and for future generations. Once again, time will tell whether this change in direction was a good one. All parliamentarians in the House and the Senate will make a significant contribution to this debate. We must all bring a rational and moral tenor to this bill as we align it with Canadian values and thinking in a way that respects all of our Canadian communities. We will live with the future changes that will come from this law. We have to ensure that it will be interpreted in accordance with our guidelines, because the consequences will be irreversible.

I am pleased that we are giving ourselves some time to address this delicate subject in order to protect vulnerable people and not to do something irreparable to people who are precious and who have the potential to live a better life with dignity.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He is right, there are service gaps. People with mental health issues may be unable to access what services there are. This is a huge problem. The government has not put any resources into it.

This evening, we learned that, when people seek access to psilocybin, a therapy that makes a difference for them, the government and Health Canada are not responding to those requests in due time.

Here is my question for my colleague. Why does the government seem unwilling to take mental health issues as seriously as they deserve to be taken?

Why is the government dragging its feet on approval for a therapy like psilocybin? Why is it so slow to follow its own guide on the importance of authorizing this kind of treatment?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question. Canada is facing huge challenges right now with respect to mental health. We should double down on this and make mental illness a priority, because it is affecting hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

There are plenty of ways to add more resources to our health care system. The government could speed up the approval process for certain drugs. We can all be more open to new ways of thinking, working and living in society that would alleviate this problem. Let us hope the government will see it and show a little leadership on things like that.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I largely agreed with the hon. member's speech, except for when he started blaming everything on the Prime Minister. Other than that, I thought he made a good and thoughtful speech.

Has the hon. member had any interaction with the health care system in Quebec? Has he made any observations with respect to how it deals with the mental health care that is given in Quebec for the patients who might well be accessing this particular MAID service?