Mr. Speaker, you will not be surprised to learn that the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting Bill C-218. Although we do not support this bill, it is not because we are unconcerned with the issue of medical assistance in dying for people with mental disorders. It is because it is not up to a political party to decide whether to implement a medical assistance in dying procedure for people with mental health issues. This is a societal issue, a societal debate, but also a clinical debate.
The reason it is not yet in effect is that there is no clinical and scientific consensus on how to regulate consent for MAID from a person whose only medical problem is a serious mental health disorder. There is no consensus and that is why Bill C-62, which was passed, excluded people with mental disorders from receiving MAID.
However, the bill provides that in 2027, the joint committee of senators and MPs will be reconvened to assess whether psychiatrists, psychologists and mental health professionals have made progress in their analysis of the future framework for MAID for people with mental health disorders. It is possible that, in 2027, government departments, scientists and psychiatrists will conclude that we are not ready, that it is too difficult to determine the “how” and the “when”, and that it is too difficult to analyze the clinical framework for authorizing or not authorizing medical assistance in dying.
We need to approach this bill with care. This is a societal debate that should not be politicized. We in Quebec have already taken a position on medical assistance in dying. Quebec is one province where this question has been debated at great length. A commission travelled everywhere across the province. A clinical and scientific consensus, as well as consensus in civil society, were reached on medical assistance in dying.
For people whose only illness is a major mental health disorder, medical assistance in dying was also rejected by Quebec for the same reasons it was rejected when Bill C-62 was passed, namely, the absence of a scientific and clinical consensus. We also need to give the experts time to reflect, consult, examine practices and evolve so they can make recommendations to the joint committee in 2027. Once the joint committee receives these recommendations, it will have to decide whether to move forward or put off the decision once again, which is not an easy thing to do. However, what is plain to see is the the seriousness and scientific rigour surrounding the decision to allow or withdraw permission for medical assistance in dying for people with mental health conditions.
I think it is worthwhile for me to read recommendation 1 of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, in which all parties and senators participated. They were quite wise, because they recommended the following: That [medical assistance in dying where mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition] should not be made available in Canada until the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice are satisfied, based on recommendations from their respective departments and in consultation with their provincial and territorial counterparts and with Indigenous Peoples, that it can be safely and adequately provided; and That one year prior to the date on which it is anticipated that the law will permit [medical assistance in dying where mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition], pursuant to subparagraph (a), the House of Commons and the Senate re-establish the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying in order to verify the degree of preparedness attained for a safe and adequate application of [medical assistance in dying where mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition].
My colleague gave several examples. I was surprised to hear her often say the words “depression” and “suicidal”. When I look at what the joint committee discussed and debated, I see that it talked about untreatable mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia. I do not know whether anyone here has ever met a person with schizophrenia who suffers from auditory or visual hallucinations with paranoid thoughts. Their reality may be that they are so medicated that they can no longer enjoy a social life or contact with others. They may be isolated from their family and live in difficult conditions. They likely have to see their psychiatrist regularly and may have tried several types of therapy with no success. This may have been their reality for the past 10 or 20 years. That person lives in a state and conditions that no one here in Parliament would ever want to experience.
We are talking about incurable illnesses that people have to learn to live with and for which they have to be medicated. A person with severe schizophrenia could get all the psychotherapy available, but they are still dealing with an extremely difficult illness. I do not want my words to be misinterpreted. I am not saying that everyone with schizophrenia would want to request medical assistance in dying. I am simply trying to provide some clarification in response to my colleague, who was talking about temporary depression, situational depression or maybe even serious depression. She is right in saying that a person can get through those things with help, psychotherapy, support from local health centres and loved ones. That is true. She is right. Those cases would never constitute a legitimate reason for obtaining medical assistance in dying.
I would also like to point out that there are some very important things in the preamble. Basically, what it calls for is justified, even legitimate: Anyone struggling with mental health issues should have the right to receive the services they need, whether that means consultations, emergency services, support, home care or assistance. In my riding, we have organizations that work in the area of mental health. One that comes to mind is Le Tournant, a transition resource that provides real-time service. A suicidal person can call, and someone can go directly to their home to support them and help them through this distressing time.
My colleague is right to point out that in Quebec, as in other provinces, there is still a lot of room for improvement in this area. Unfortunately, it is not for lack of interest that the provinces are not offering these services, but because they do not have the means to do so. Over the past few years, health services, and particularly social services, have gotten shortchanged because health problems are so significant that social problems have fallen by the wayside a bit. The provinces have to do more with less. A good solution to support people would be to give the provinces the financial resources they need to establish much more intensive services for people struggling with mental health problems. In my riding, there are all kinds of services, including intensive home care services. These services exist, but perhaps not at the same level as the needs require.
My colleague notes in the preamble that this issue falls largely within provincial jurisdiction. I strongly suggest that she join forces with her colleagues to demand that the government do more and provide the provinces with the resources they need to order to implement all the necessary services for people struggling with mental health issues. In the meantime, the Bloc Québécois trusts that the House of Commons will take the time to thoroughly examine the issue of MAID for mental health disorders.