Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about people living with mental health issues.
It is all well and good if certain psychedelic drugs, taken in low doses, may eventually cure these individuals. Under no circumstances should medical assistance in dying become a way out for those who are unable to access care. When I talk to my colleague from Montcalm, who is an expert on this issue, he tells me that this is not at all intended for such people. They would never be granted access to end-of-life care. Rather, we are talking about people who have been struggling with mental health issues for 20 years, who have tried every available treatment and consulted every possible specialist.
What the court has told the government and us, as legislators, is that we must respect the rights and freedoms of people who, after decades of trying everything, have found no relief. We must recognize that mental illness is a health condition, just like physical illness, and respect the rights and freedoms guaranteed to these individuals under the charter.
Is there not a risk that the bill, as it stands, could be challenged before the Supreme Court, forcing the government and legislators to go back to the drawing board in a few years' time?