Mr. Speaker, the member believes, as I do, that the role of the state is to ensure that the conditions are in place for a person to make a free and informed choice, not to impose what it thinks is best on a person who is suffering. However, when it comes to mental illness, on what grounds should the state restrict or undermine the right to self-determination of a person with a mental disorder who has been resistant to treatment for decades, as long as their decision-making capacity is not affected?
Decision-making capacity can be assessed. Psychiatrists are already able to assess it when a mental illness exists alongside another condition, such as cancer. Why is it more complicated when the person just has a mental disorder? On what grounds should suffering that has become intolerable be considered reasonable under section 1 of the charter? On what basis, then, can discrimination be considered reasonable, when all of the experts told us that a blanket prohibition is discriminatory?