Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand up and speak to Bill C-41 for reasons that will become apparent as I move forward.
MAID is, frankly, one of the more difficult issues that I have had to deal with in my 11 years here as an MP. It is an issue that deals with people at the most vulnerable time in their life, making one of the most difficult decisions they will ever make. We have a great responsibility in getting this right. It is a discussion, of course, that people wish they never had to have, but it is a conversation that is necessary, and that is why this piece of legislation is so important.
MAID provides Canadians with the ability to make a choice about how they wish to live out their last days and to exercise some control over the most inevitable parts of human existence, and it brings comfort to their family members. It is also something that generates a lot of questions and concerns from Canadians, and rightly so.
People across the country are struggling with these personal issues. When family members are ill, sick and dying, they are dealing with medical professionals, and they need to know that this is a top priority for us. I know this because I, like every other member of Parliament in this chamber, have received phone calls and emails from constituents and people sharing these deeply personal stories.
The most recent iteration of the special MAID committee, which I had the honour of sitting on, completed its work in June. I see one of my colleagues across the way. She was on the committee with me, so she understands the great angst that we all experienced in dealing with these deeply personal issues. We heard from witnesses. We listened to testimony. We heard from professionals. We heard from families with lived experience. I think we got it right. It was a tough decision to make, and anybody who thinks that committee did not take its job seriously was not paying attention.
Bill C-41 would get us to where we need to be, in my opinion, and I am honoured to stand up here and speak to it. Firstly, the bill would conclusively halt the scheduled expansion of MAID on the basis of mental illness. Secondly, it would legalize the provision of MAID on the basis of an advance request. An adult diagnosed with a capacity-limiting illness could make a request while they still have the capacity to do so, in anticipation of a future loss of capacity.
I want to speak first about the mental illness decision. As I said, I was on this committee most recently. I was on the committee immediately prior to that, when we reviewed the issue. I was on the committee the first time there was a joint committee. I was also on the justice committee when the legislation was first considered and, ultimately, was introduced.
I have heard from all of the witnesses time and time again. I know how troubling this issue is. I struggled with it myself. Mental illness is a real issue. It is a real medical condition. However, we have to get this right. Until we have concurrence among the medical community, we as legislators would be irresponsible to do anything but introduce this bill and stop the law from coming into effect on March 17 of next year.
All three times, we heard from experts from across the country, people who practise in this area, people who are specialized and have particular knowledge. We heard from family members. The overwhelming majority view was that the system is not ready, the country is not ready, and we cannot responsibly and safely introduce MAID for people whose sole underlying condition is mental illness.
There is no consensus among the doctors. If we cannot get consensus among the doctors on a diagnosis, how can we possibly get consensus among the doctors on whether we should proceed? That is a very important distinction. This is not a value judgment. We have to listen to these experts, but if 10 doctors examine the same patient and cannot agree on the diagnosis, how can we possibly responsibly proceed and allow this to take effect? We cannot. That is where we are today.
An irremediable mental health condition is something the medical community can simply not agree on, full stop. That is why we are here talking about this today. This is not to say that mental illness is not a serious or grievous condition. We all know it is. We have talked about it many times. We all have people in our families who experience these challenges. Nobody makes light of this, I can assure members. It does not matter. It does not mean people cannot be helped. It does not mean there is not help out there for these people in their darkest moment to have something to look forward to. That is why this is so important.
The committee heard from experts about the insufficient mental health services available in this country. Let us call it what it is. We know that. That is something we have to address here. It is something the provinces have to address. It is something that I am proud to say this government, and in fact all parliamentarians as it is not a partisan issue, can agree on and something we have made great strides on.
This first part of the bill is not only important but urgent. If we do not pass it immediately, the law takes effect on March 17, 2027, so I am asking every member of this House to vote in favour of Bill C-41 for that reason and the reasons I have outlined.
The second part of the bill deals with creating a framework for baseline safeguards for the provinces and territories to be able to introduce their own legislation to allow MAID to be provided on the basis of an advance request. An advance request lets a person decide now, after diagnosis of a disease that in the future would strip them of the ability to consent to MAID, to make decisions about their end-of-life care while they still can. This generates great debate too.
The crux of the concern that I have heard is that people lose their ability to make the decision, which means we do not know if they have possibly changed their mind. Here is the thing about that. We know when we are making that decision that that is part of the equation. If I am presented with that scenario, and I know the action is going to be carried out after I have lost my ability to make that decision, I make that decision myself, and I know that going in. That is consent. I think people need to give that serious consideration.
I know my friend across the way is going to raise the issue of a perceived lack of study. It has been studied. I have been on all three iterations of this committee. Members can look at the report from the first one. The matter of advance requests was part of our discussion. We reviewed it thoroughly. We heard from experts. We gave it detailed consideration. This is not something the government just decided to do. This debate has been going on for several years. Not only that, but when this bill gets through the House, it will go to committee and we will have the opportunity to scrutinize it again. Members can rest assured that this will be done responsibly. I have great confidence that that is a fact.
Under Bill C-41, in order to qualify or make the decision for an advance request, the requester must be an adult, 18 years old or older; live in Canada and be eligible for publicly funded health care; have a diagnosis of an incurable, capacity-limiting disease; and have the capacity to make the decision about their own health care. I emphasize that again.
The advance request must be drafted with the assistance of a physician or a nurse practitioner and in consultation with an expert in this disease. The request reflects the person's voluntary and informed decision. I cannot put enough emphasis on this. It is an informed decision, when one has the ability and the capacity to make that decision. Is that not what we want? I say the answer to that is yes.
I know I am running out of time. I think this legislation would put our country where it needs to be. I feel very strongly about it. It is an issue I have been committed to for many years now, and I am very proud to be standing here in support of this bill.