“I want to talk about this bill on medically assisted dying. The government acted on this issue because of a Quebec court ruling. The other member and I have both worked on these laws since the beginning.”

“Madam Speaker, I have a few thoughts I would like to share with the House on the legislation and what it is that the member is actually proposing. With what the previous speaker just mentioned, it is important for us to recognize that the government took action because of a superior court decision that was made in the province of Quebec. Both the member and I have actually been around since the creation of the MAID legislation, so we are very— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

“Canada has medical assistance in dying laws because the courts told Parliament it had to create them, not because one party chose to. All parties worked together, studied the issue deeply, and voted for the original law. Choosing this is deeply personal, and the courts have brought us this debate on mental illness just like they did before.”

“Madam Speaker, I think it is really important that we put into perspective why we are where we are today. This is not something for which a political party made the decision. The member who just spoke, as well as the members opposite who were around, back in 2015, like myself, just need to reflect back to that time and what was taking place. For example, the Supreme Court of Canada put it on the political agenda, so there was a need for the House of Commons to respond to it. It was the Carter v. Canada case, which obligated all of us at that time to deal with the issue. The government worked collaboratively and there was a high sense of co-operation on the issue. After all, what could be more personal than having to deal with the issue of medical assistance in dying, and having to make difficult decisions as to when to say no to a medical treatment, or to have a medical treatment that would ultimately lead to the death of an individual? It is very much a personal decision. I think that we need to amplify that. Those personal decisions are best made by the individual working with the experts they have access to, and having those heartfelt discussions with family members and often close friends. I think we often underestimate the important contributions and understanding that health care providers, in particular, and others provide while dealing with the difficult issue of death. For those who are dealing with it on a more frequent basis, if they go to hospice care facilities or personal care facilities, they will often find those health care professionals and others in situations where they have to deal with death on a regular basis. As we all know, it is a part of life. If we then factor in the difficult complications that come to the table with individuals who have a desire to seek MAID, there have been a great deal of arguments brought forward. The decision was made in February or maybe March 2015, but the Supreme Court started hearing about it in 2014. The passion was very real. We got to see some of that passion. If members recall, we had a special committee of the House. I believe it might have even been a joint committee that included members of the Senate. Whether members were on the committee or not, there was a great deal of discussion that took place between committee members and other members of different caucuses. I can recall members inside the chamber delivering speeches on MAID, even talking to some of the individuals who were involved in the lobby rooms. We would often see tears while listening to their personal stories. All one needs to do is to review Hansard during the second reading. Even back then, I spent a lot of my time on the floor of the House here. However, I can say that the committee that studied it after second reading, and even prior to second reading, was deeply engaged. It went on at great length, for hours and hours, with personal stories of witnesses who appeared before it. It was not an easy decision. Sitting back, what I witnessed was some members of the Conservative Party advocating one way and others advocating another way, as it was with the Liberal Party and other entities within the House, because it was based on sharing our free thoughts, having a free vote and so forth. It was difficult, but ultimately a vast majority of members of Parliament voted in favour of Canada’s having MAID legislation. That is something that was not done lightly or taken lightly, and I think we need to emphasize that in this debate. It was very thorough, and ultimately, members from all political entities ended up voting in favour of Canada’s having MAID legislation. A number of years after that, as I alluded to at the very beginning and as the previous speaker was making reference to, was the issue of mental illness and whether it should or should not be part of MAID. Once again that was put on the table, brought to the House of Commons, because of a decision from a superior court. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

“We need to talk more about mental health. If this bill passes, people with severe mental illnesses will never be considered for assisted dying, and I do not think that is right. I do not think we should ban them from it.”

“Madam Speaker, the issue of MAID came before the House again because of a superior court decision in Quebec. That we can say. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, they can call it what they want. It is still a superior court in Quebec. Moving forward, the issue has been brought to the House, and a decision has been made. There is a sunset clause within the legislation that does need to be addressed. On the issue of mental illness, ever since I have been a parliamentarian, I can remember Dr. Gulzar Cheema, one of my colleagues in the Manitoba legislature, arguing and articulating on why it was so important that we have not only a department of health but also a department of mental health, because we need much more to recognize mental health as part of our health system. There are severe files within mental health that I believe, if this legislation were to pass, would never, ever get any consideration, and I do not believe that would be appropriate. Given the very importance of the issue of mental health, let us have more discussions. I would like more provinces to establish departments of mental health, but at the end of the day, I do not necessarily believe the exclusion is the way to go.”