Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended by adding the following after the words “the Senate adjourn”:

“; and

That the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be each authorized, in accordance with rule 10-11(1), to examine the subject matter of Bill C-62, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate, and that, for the purposes of these studies, each of these committees:

1.submit its final report to the Senate no later than February 27, 2024;

2.have the power to meet, even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, with rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) being suspended in relation thereto;

3.hold its first meeting on the subject matter of the bill at the latest on Thursday, February 15, 2024, if this motion is adopted by then; and

4.be authorized to deposit its report with the Clerk of the Senate if the Senate is not then sitting”.

Honourable senators, I want to preface my remarks with the following: Legislation can often seem theoretical, distant, ethereal. I fully recognize and accept that this is a highly emotional, controversial and political issue with, at times, polarizing viewpoints. However, this subject involves real people, real families and agonizingly real choices made in a context that cannot possibly be understood by those who have not lived or experienced it. It is important to keep that front of mind and to approach this topic with the humility it deserves.

The three-year delay in expanding medical assistance in dying for individuals with a mental illness will have profound implications. People waiting to apply to be assessed are essential voices that were not adequately heard during our committee discussions. Our duty as senators is to ensure that any legislative changes affecting minority interests and groups that are historically underrepresented or marginalized are recognized, thoroughly examined and, indeed, represented. Our responsibility is to ensure that we make informed decisions that reflect the values and concerns of a diverse Canadian population.

Honourable senators, through my decades as a rural physician, managing mental illness was a key component of my practice. The very harsh reality is that, like many other conditions in medicine, mental disorders can be severe and treatment refractory.

I want to assure you that the individuals impacted to this extent are minute; the numbers are very small. However, we are talking about pain and suffering, and a darkness that individuals described as being trapped in their own minds, riddled with anxiety, intrusive thoughts, social avoidance and total social isolation — this despite every available treatment avenue offered to these individuals.

Many are left with the horrific side effects of therapeutic interventions — often Parkinsonian effects from the use of antipsychotics; undergoing electroconvulsive therapies and memory loss; transcranial magnetic stimulation; deep brain stimulation with the risk of infection; surgery; intensive individual and group counselling; and often multiple in-patient admissions.

I would like to read to you an email I received from Jane Hunter, with whom I have had a very moving conversation and subsequent correspondence:

I am in no way “vulnerable,” as I keep being described, intellectually.

I want the opportunity to calmly answer to the objections of those who have not, so far, been able or willing to look beyond their own ideological paradigms and lived experiences, and consider mine — not of my choice, I assure you.

We are out here, depending on your powers of reason and rational thinking. The Senate chamber of “sober second thought.”

The clinicians across Canada are ready for March 17, 2024.

Bouncing this 3 years out is a political “hot potato”;

We are talking about inclusiveness of suffering Canadian human beings and unconstitutional discrimination against the nature of one’s illness!

I do not want to plan a suicide. I simply have a desire to end my tragic life, which has never been and never will be meaningful, productive or joyful, with dignity. I want the choice to have a peaceful death with my loved ones by my side. Please allow me this last personal freedom.

Honourable colleagues, excluding individuals with a mental illness from applying to access MAID requires careful consideration of the legislative history — specifically, how we got to where we are today as our colleague Senator Kutcher has so eloquently outlined. Practically speaking, we need to hear from those whom this bill will most directly impact, all existing within the current legal framework governing medical assistance in dying.

Honourable senators, I urge you to consider a more thorough and inclusive examination of the proposed delay in expansion to medical assistance in dying. Let us fulfill our duty to those Canadians who feel so marginalized and alienated today by continuing to engage in a robust, compassionate and comprehensive debate so that we make the right decision for the right people. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Senator Plett, do you have a question?

I have a question for Senator Ravalia.

Senator Ravalia, would you take a question?

With pleasure.

Thank you. I won’t belabour this and I won’t debate this tonight, but I do have a question because I have heard it here a couple of times tonight. I think you inferred it — and I’m sure not intentionally, Senator Ravalia; I have all the respect and time for you.

However, what makes you or Senator Kutcher or anybody else in this chamber think that because some of us do not support this, that this isn’t as deeply personal for me as it is for you? I have also experienced, through friends and family, the difficulties — people who chose not to end their life, who probably don’t want to come to committee and talk about this. This is just as personal and deep for me and for those people as this is for you or Senator Kutcher or the people you are talking about who do want to avail themselves of MAID.

Why is it that whenever somebody is opposed that they are obviously hard-hearted, have no feelings and this has never affected them? This has affected me personally, Senator Ravalia, and I am upset and frustrated that people in this chamber would think that because I don’t support this that I haven’t felt that as well. Senator Ravalia, why is that?

Thank you, Senator Plett. I have the utmost respect for everything that you are saying. I have had this very discussion and debate with close friends. The majority of my family are against medical assistance in dying for mental illness. However, I am speaking on behalf of a very small cohort of individuals whom I have witnessed suffering. I do not, in any way, discount the strength and depth of your emotions and of those individuals who have not had the voice to be able to speak. This is why I prefaced my remarks that this is, indeed, a polarizing, emotional and difficult debate. But it is an issue that, at the end of the day, in my role previously as a physician and now as a legislator, wherein I am attempting to speak on behalf of individuals who I consider are voiceless and suffering in a manner that is inexplicable to those who have not witnessed it. Thank you.

As a legislator, a family member and a friend, I am speaking on behalf of the voiceless who do not want to share their experiences, who did not end their life and who saw psychiatrists who were worth their salt to help cure these people. I am speaking on behalf of them. The people I’m speaking on behalf of are just as important as the people you are speaking on behalf of, Senator Ravalia. Would you not agree with that?

Thank you, Senator Plett. I will agree with you, absolutely, 100%. The point you make is valid, relevant, rational and absolutely worthwhile. Thank you.

Senator Ravalia, will you take a question?

Sure.

Thank you very much. What we’re debating right now is a Committee of the Whole for this week, an opportunity for every senator to hear the ministers speak. You know I’m on the same page as you as to whether or not we should be expanding the provisions of MAID to those people with the sole underlying cause of mental health, and I have supported and worked with Senator Kutcher through this. It’s not what we’re debating right now. Bill C-62 will come and we will speak on it.

I would like to understand why you don’t think that, at this point in time, when we have a looming deadline and this has been studied by joint committees and here on Bill C-7, Bill C-39 and now Bill C-62, we would risk having the appropriate implementation of that provision put at risk because — now it’s become clear to me what’s going on with this amendment here — we’re being rushed as senators by a group of people who didn’t even share with us that they were going to bring an amendment, although I see you have prepared notes, so I guess you knew.

Why would you want the rest of us not to be able to participate in a full Committee of the Whole with ministers here, where we can take what we have seen and read — 400 submissions to the joint committee in writing, many of which I have gone through and read now, not just what was on the record. I may or may not agree with all the reasons of the committee report. Why would you not want us to be able to put those questions directly to two ministers for over two hours?

I applaud the leadership decision to move forward and ask the government to make the ministers responsible, and I’m beginning to resent the game that I see has started here to force us into a particular way of reviewing. I want to see those ministers. I want them to be accountable here. Why don’t you?

Thank you, Senator Lankin. I’m basing my brief and my discussions on the fact that I had the opportunity to attend the committee, and I believe that the report that was issued by that committee lacked key aspects of witness testimony that we heard, and that it was exclusionary of some critical elements, including hearing from people who are suffering from irremediable mental illness. So this is not a game. This is advocacy on behalf of a small group of individuals who are suffering irremediably on a daily basis. I speak to that from the point of view of a clinician who has witnessed this.

I truly believe that the committee failed in many respects. The night that I was there for one of the testimonies, the disrespect that was shown to my colleagues — psychiatrists and MAID providers — was beyond appalling. Thank you.

I appreciate the point that you just made because I have seen that in committees in this place, and I abhor that behaviour, where witnesses are not treated with respect.

The game that I’m talking about is not the game involving those people who need help. I want to be there to support them getting access to MAID with all of the criteria and all of the supports. We’ll talk about Bill C-62, but what’s happening now, without informing any of us so we could have been prepared to think about this amendment, appears — given it wasn’t even on the scroll — to be a very tactical approach to this. I’m not saying you were the author, but I’m saying that I personally feel quite a growing resentment here at trying to be moved out of having the opportunity to speak to these ministers directly at Committee of the Whole, and I don’t understand why you are trying to prohibit the rest of us, who weren’t at committee but who have read the submissions, from participating in the debate.

I have no opposition to hearing from the ministers myself. I have some very deep questions for them as well. I am merely responding to the debate that has proceeded this afternoon. Thank you.

Senator Ravalia, in your understanding, this amendment asks for the Committee of the Whole to continue as planned. In addition, an expansion of the pre-study to include — am I correct on that? Is that your understanding?

Yes, that is my understanding. Thank you.

Honourable colleagues, I rise today to speak in support of the amendment and to thank Senator Moodie for bringing it forward. Colleagues, I will be brief.

The concept of medical assistance in dying, or MAID, is not being debated, nor is the content of the act. The matter before us is the timing of one’s eligibility to receive medical assistance in dying if their sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. As a senator, representing the minority is crucial for upholding the principles of democracy and ensuring that all voices are heard and considered in the legislative process.

When Motion No. 152 was tabled last week, my first thought was about the people most impacted by the bill, the people with mental illness who have been waiting for years to apply for consideration for MAID. My second thought was about due process. Currently, Bill C-62 is still in the House of Commons at second reading. Our elected colleagues are doing their due diligence.

Colleagues, I support this amendment, given that it is our fundamental responsibility to thoroughly scrutinize legislation passed by the House of Commons. Given that we have yet to receive the bill from the other place, we have the time to pre‑study the legislation. The amendment is achievable and timely.

Expanding our pre-study to include committee work in addition to our Committee of the Whole would empower the Senate to realize its mandated work by examining a legislative amendment that is complex and deeply personal and emotional for many Canadians. Concerns have been expressed about the preparedness of Canada’s health care system for MAID if the sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. I have heard that while there may be practice readiness, there is not clinical readiness.

As a physician who has had a clinical practice for over 25 years, the distinction between those two terms is unclear and is not a distinction used in medicine. The pre-study could further explore concerns about readiness and health care system preparedness.

As a physician, I look forward to hearing from citizens, to give a voice to people with lived experiences, to have an opportunity to better understand their perspectives and to commit their testimony to the record. Colleagues, I urge you to please join me in supporting this amendment, and I look forward to working with you to fulfill our duty to Canadians.

Honourable senators, I rise to support Senator Moodie’s amendment. I do that, first, because it strikes me, as I sit here, that it fully respects the government’s preferred timelines and everything the government wants to achieve here, even though I’ve also learned while I’ve been in here that the government has given itself a little bit of flexibility beyond March 17.

I support it as well because this place has proven over and over again that we are at our best when we go the extra mile, we take our time and we ask questions, we’re certain about evidence, and we feel that we know everything that we need to know as we come to a conclusion, and as we express our support or opposition to that in an important vote. That was true as you looked at MAID the first time. In the second tranche, I was privileged to be part of those debates, and I think we owe it to ourselves to do that here.

When we legalized cannabis, we spent nine months examining that bill. It was referred to five or six committees. I thought that was a bit of overkill at the time, but it added a great deal of value. It answered a lot of questions that people had about the impact of that bill on health, social welfare and social justice, many things that some people in this chamber were concerned about.

I’ve seen that it’s good when we take our time. I count myself among those who were very concerned about what “irremediability” means — irremediable issues. I was concerned what was meant by “long term.” As far back as a couple of years ago, I was meeting with providers, ethicists and regulators who had started the work then and were actually quite far down the road a couple of years ago in terms of preparedness. We’ve moved a long way since then, and I believe arguably that those safeguards are incontrovertibly in place. “Irremediability” means just that, and “long-term” means just that.

I’ve learned as well that all of that was made clear at the joint committee, but it appears not to have been reflected in the outcomes of the joint committee, and so I need to know more about that. I need to hear directly from some of the people who provided evidence to the joint committee, and some who were possibly excluded from it. We can do that comfortably within the timeline set out by the government.

Senator Moodie’s motion, it seems to me — and I haven’t had much time to think about it — provides a practical and methodical way of doing that, so I support it. It seems to me that it would exhort us to do our best to go the extra mile, to listen, to process, to use our very best judgment and be at our very best as the Senate of Canada that citizens of Canada want us to be. Those are the reasons that I’m supporting the motion.

Yes.

To the best of my reading of the motion and what I’ve heard so far, that is indeed the intention. There are others who have had time and thought about this for a longer period than me, and they can comment on that as well, but I believe those are the intentions behind it. Thank you.

Senator Dean, I want to thank you for your intervention, and the thoughtfulness in terms of you reminding us how important the process is that we undertake in this place every day.

I was reflecting on, and I think it’s probably worthwhile to consider, even the emotion we’ve heard in this debate in this chamber so far tonight is a reflection of the diversity of views in Canada, and how complex this issue is. Would you feel that underscores even more the importance of our taking our time to do this properly and really hearing from those sides directly? Thank you.

You make a good point. I find it compelling, and I hope that others do also. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Senator Dean. Will you take another question?

I’m happy to, yes.

I, too, appreciate the context that you set out and your contribution. I’m finding myself trying to catch up from an amendment that I didn’t know was coming. You said you haven’t been able to reflect on this, and obviously I haven’t either. I’m sorry to do this, but I’m really trying to understand how this has come about.

In your remarks, when you said you didn’t have time and you hadn’t reflected on that, are you suggesting that you found out about this amendment here tonight when Senator Moodie moved it, and you had no knowledge of it before that? I’d like to understand, because most of us in the chamber had no knowledge of it. I’m wondering, honestly, did you?

Actually, I heard about this a short time before I came into the chamber. I had a sense that there may be alternative approaches to this. I think we all did. I’m not at all surprised by it, frankly. I didn’t have much time to prepare. I wrote a few notes as I sat here, so that will give you a bit of an indication of the amount of time that I had to prepare for it.

I remain surprised by the fact that you were called by the Speaker in what appears to be a scrolls note list, but didn’t have time and only just heard of it. I’m struggling with what is going on here.

I have a question for Senator Dean. So I understand, the motion talks about a Committee of the Whole — maybe I’ll just wait for Senator Lankin.

Order. Senator Cardozo has the floor.

As I understand it, this motion calls for having a Committee of the Whole, and adding to it committee hearings, which will go into this in more depth.

Senator, as I approach this, I am undecided at this point on Bill C-62. I think I have a deep understanding and respect for people who are for Bill C-62, as I have a deep understanding and respect for people who are against it. Then there’s a third group of people who are really torn between the two, and that’s where I fall at this point.

Do you understand that position? Is that one that you’ve come across as you’ve been involved in this debate? It’s something I’ve thought long and hard about over many years, in some cases for personal reasons, but more because of the precise bill we have here. I’d like your thoughts on that.

That’s a really good question. I think it would be rare for any of us, when confronted with something of this complexity and on which there are such divided views and which goes absolutely to the core issue of life and death, to quickly come down heavily on one side of it or another. I put myself in that place and, in that respect, I’m just like you. I’ve wrestled with it. I wrestled with it earlier.

At the end of the day, these are personal reflections of our life and our experience. Senator Plett has talked quite convincingly about that. We all have to come at this having made our own evaluations and judgments. These are tough calls. It is as tough for me as it is for anybody else.

Senator Dean, will you take a question? You may need some assistance in this.

I will.

Thank you, everybody, for sharing your very important thoughts. I can’t add anything else to the gravity of the decisions that we have to make.

My question, Senator Dean, concerns the lack of data that has been collected so far. I understand that the government has expanded the metrics that they’re collecting starting in 2023 — they won’t be available, unfortunately, until 2024 — especially regarding Indigenous communities, Black communities and persons with disabilities. We’re talking about systemically marginalized communities. Do you think we’ll have enough time for the pre-study? That is the question we’re hearing. My concern is whether we have enough time to really explore these issues, which are extremely significant.

That’s a great question. When it comes to issues of this import, I don’t think we ever have enough time. However, when we’re responsive to the concerns of people who are struggling with difficult issues — and I’m going to be short about this — do we ever really have enough time? At a certain point, we have to exercise our own judgment. That’s tough, especially when it comes to life and death matters.

None of us come to this easily — none of us. I certainly don’t. I understand the import of this; I know that Senator Ravalia and others do. Sometimes we have to base our decisions on the information that is available to us now. We’ll always hear that we don’t know enough. I think we’ve been hearing that for three or four or five years now. At a certain point, we have to make a judgment call, and that’s tough, and we have to live with it. There are some cases in which we don’t get to change our minds afterwards because when it’s done, it’s done.

On balance, I think we know as much as we need to know, given the balance between the difficult situation a relatively small number of people find themselves in and the compulsion that some of us have to provide relief to them. That’s all I can say, I’m afraid.

My question is for clarification, Senator Dean, regarding what you said in your speech. Did you say that even if there’s a sunset clause and if we don’t adopt Bill C-62 before March 17, the government still has a margin of manœuvre? Have I misunderstood you? If you did say that, could you explain what it is about?

Yes, I believe that clause 3 of the bill provides latitude for the government to extend out the period where there is a bar against access to MAID for those suffering irremediably. I’m not sure of the period, but as far as I can tell, clause 3 says that the government would give itself 90 days or something. There are experts in the room, but that is my understanding. Again, I only learned that today. However, I’m not a lawyer. Others will answer that question for us.

The time for debate has expired.

Honourable senators, as I stand here this evening, I realize that we’re dealing with a very emotional issue. I can only speak for my own beliefs and my reflection on the legislation before us.

I want to start by thanking our colleagues who served on the joint committee. I am trying to understand the phase that we’re in right now, which is a continuation on the adoption of the previous legislation. In their deliberate engagement with the joint committee, they felt that the committee chose not to acknowledge certain elements in relation to the hearings that were held. I wasn’t there, so I’m going to take their word for what it is. I accept the reflection that they have given to this chamber here tonight.

I rise to support Senator Moodie’s proposed amendment because I believe in the context of our responsibility. As a chamber on its own, we have some obligation to look at the issues through our own lens and be informed by that. At the end of the day, we’ll still come to our own decision, regardless of what decisions we may come to. I can only tell you about my own conscience and my own beliefs, but I would not try to impose them on anyone else because I understand how important this decision is for each one of us, regardless of what it may be at the end of the day.

I also want to hear from the ministers who will be coming here and from their officials. I want them to explain why we’re at this juncture, why we have to extend out the time frame that the courts have provided, and why we weren’t able to come to a decision. They will provide an explanation. We’ve heard part of that from our colleagues, but if Senator Moodie’s motion is adopted, we will hear from the experts whom we will summon before our two joint committees. They will tell us their perspective, and we’ll consider it. That’s all we can do.

At the end of the day, we will eventually vote on Bill C-62. It may not be to the government’s liking if we don’t get to that deadline. By the way, I’ve been in this chamber for quite some time. I’ve listened ad nauseam to people telling us how we should not be rushed by the government. I respect that too. I’ve been one of those who have been championing bills and telling you that you need to vote on a bill because it has to be passed by a certain date. So we’re full of contradictions, to put it politely.

However, colleagues, I do believe — in the context of minority rights and a small group of minority rights — that as senators we have an obligation to think with our heads and our hearts at the same time. I can’t speak for you, but I know my own experience. I know how hard it is to lose a loved one. I know the pain and that you would like to retrace how it could have been different. I know the difficulty in having to help a loved one make tough decisions about other loved ones. It is very painful.

This bill is very personal for all of us in this chamber. I don’t think Senator Moodie is taking away from the objective of the government to pass Bill C-62. It simply allows time for our two standing committees to hear from those who want to be heard — those who do not think that this opportunity should ever be offered to those who suffer from mental illness and those who believe it’s fundamental to their rights.

As a senator, we have listened, very tentatively at times, to how this chamber has failed Canadians who are minorities. Under the Constitution, we have an obligation to reflect on that. I know what it’s like to be in a minority and to be in a majority. I’m a male, so I understand that very well. I also am a brown person. When I get up in the morning and brush my teeth, I look in the mirror and see a brown man. Before I go to bed, I brush my teeth again and he’s still there in the mirror. I don’t get to escape that. That’s who I am.

I’ve been judged by my name, religion and the colour of my skin. I accept that. That’s who I am. I can’t change it. People have loved me for who I am and they’ve treated me with disdain for who I am. I accept that too. It is the luck of the draw. I don’t get to choose.

For those who are struggling with a very personal decision about the end of life, I cannot put myself in their shoes, but I can bring understanding and reflection.

In this chamber, we have a responsibility as legislators. I can disagree with what our colleagues in the other place are doing and how they’re getting to this legislation they will be sending us. However, at the end of the day, that is their right. Equally, we have our responsibility to have our own debate and discussion and come to our own conclusions.

I respect the hard work we all do here. I also respect the time frame. However, I believe if we allow Senator Moodie’s motion to be accepted, it will not take away from the greater good we want to do with Bill C-62; it will enhance it and inform us about the care we sometimes have to take, even if our emotions or political beliefs might get in the way, because we don’t have the luxury of ignoring the people who are asking us to be heard.

Also, we don’t get to ignore the people who are asking us to reject the notion that this bill might extend a right to some. We need to hear all these views and make our own decisions.

I recognize that tonight is very emotional. I want to thank all my colleagues who are speaking about this, because I know it’s hard to get up and do so. We may not agree about how we got to this motion here tonight and why we’re debating it but, as colleagues, we’re smart political people in this chamber.

Let’s be honest — at the end of the day, we’re going to have to make a tough decision. The ministers need to come, because they’ve made a decision. We have every right to examine them, as we have every right to have our committees hear from witnesses who want to be heard and make our final decision.

Colleagues, I would urge you to support the motion. More importantly, while we may disagree on the outcome of this legislation, hopefully we can still remain united as friends and colleagues.

Thank you.

Senator Yussuff, thank you for your very relevant comments.

Over the past few weeks, some people close to me have had some close brushes with death. As you put it so well, we often have a sword of Damocles hanging over our heads in this chamber, because we are often facing deadlines by which we must accept bills. That’s what bothers me about the March 17 and March 30 deadlines. This is a fundamental issue for Canadians, one that challenges our values and touches us deeply. That’s one of the reasons I’m sitting in this chamber. We’re debating the passage of an extremely important bill that will have a profound impact on human beings.

Do you think that clause 3 of the bill would allow the government to extend the deadline we have on the table by 90 days? If so, that would change the perspective on the possibility of studying the merits of a bill that is fundamental to Canadians.

First, thank you for your intervention.

I’ve never been a lawyer, even though I have degrees: Doctorates of Laws from two universities.

I do believe, regarding the point that my colleague made earlier in regard to section 3, I’ve taken the same view. I might be wrong. When the ministers are here or, for that matter, the government office, one of them could provide clarification.

I do take the same view that my colleague gave in regard to the government giving themselves an out with respect to the time frame regarding March 17.

I will forfeit my time to others who want to speak on this.

I can take a minute to refer to some questions that were raised about the government, anticipating that there might be a lengthy debate here. They have put in what are called “coordinating amendments” that are essentially a fail-safe, which say that if the bill doesn’t come into force until after March 17, the proper clauses will be dealt with as if the bill had passed before the deadline. That’s how they are protecting people.

I should say that for any person seeking MAID at this point, under the new rules, it would be, at minimum, a 90-day evaluation process. Nothing would happen in the short term. Certainly, nothing would happen before this chamber. Under the suggestions of Senator Moodie’s amendment, nothing would happen. They anticipated that.

They’ve put in the fail-safe. There is the double fail-safe in how the MAID system itself works in terms of assessment. I will let others join the debate because I spoke earlier.

Thank you.

I don’t often allow myself the opportunity to speak extemporaneously in this chamber for fear of what I might say. The good news for all of you is that I have terrible laryngitis. Whatever I’m going to say this evening will be short.

We are here today on quite a remarkable anniversary; quite by coincidence, it was on this day — February 12 — in 1994 that Sue Rodriguez, who had campaigned so passionately and personally for medical aid in dying, ended her life with the assistance of an anonymous physician.

Ms. Rodriguez suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, what we then called Lou Gehrig’s disease, and fought in the courts for the right to end her life even though she was not immediately terminally ill and even though her death was not immediately foreseeable. The court ruled against her five to four, and she nonetheless found a brave physician who volunteered to end her life and end her suffering.

In consequence of Ms. Rodriguez’s high-profile legal battle, later on in Carter, the Supreme Court ruled that medical aid in dying was a constitutional right to be afforded to all Canadians if their suffering was intolerable to them and irremediable.

In 2016 in the case known as E.F., the Court of Appeal in Alberta — not necessarily known for its wildly progressive views — ruled unanimously that those same protections should be afforded to those whose primary cause of suffering was mental illness.

But we are not here tonight to litigate that issue. I would like to speak specifically to Senator Moodie’s proposed amendment and why I think it’s important for all of us in this chamber to support this amendment, whatever we feel about medical aid in dying itself.

But whatever we feel about the proposition of offering medical aid in dying to those with a psychiatric condition, whether we are opposed vehemently — as Senator Plett has expressed so eloquently — or whether we are in support — as Senators Ravalia and Kutcher have expressed so eloquently — we must surely all agree that rushing Bill C-62 through the Senate without due process does a grave injustice to those on all sides of the debate. For weeks now, I have been hearing from Canadians who have said, eloquently and correctly, that our psychiatric care system in this country is devastatingly broken. The people who desperately want psychiatric care cannot receive it. We don’t have enough psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors or funding. There are people in this country who are suffering and who want aid in getting better and cannot get it. There are those who have also accessed every kind of treatment and counselling available, to no avail, and want their suffering to end.

We have not, at any point in this body, given people on both sides of those issues the chance to speak. Senator Moodie’s amendment would allow us to do that, to interrogate the terrible crisis in our mental health care system and, at the same time, examine the Charter issues which are the purview of the Senate.

Now, there is often a canard out there that senators don’t like to work, that we have joined some wonderful retirement club here. What Senator Moodie is proposing is that we give up potentially a break week for those of us on these two committees — the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and Social Affairs Committee — or that we work while the Senate is sitting and perhaps while our other committees are meeting.

Now, I think if we are fair, we have to say that what Senator Moodie is asking is a lot; she is asking a lot of our analysts and our clerks to round up the witnesses, to convince people to speak on something that is so personal and so triggering for so many people. It will not be easy to meet the deadline that Senator Moodie has proposed. It will cost money if we have to return, those of us who are on those committees, to come to Ottawa to sit during a break week. There will be extra airfares, hotel costs and staff costs. What Senator Moodie is proposing is not a small ask. It asks a great deal of those of us who are on those committees, it asks a great deal of the staff in our offices, it asks a great deal of the staff on those committees, from the interpreters to the pages.

But if we are not prepared to make that kind of investment on this topic which deals with fundamental human rights, with the rights both of those who seek treatment and cannot find it and the rights of those who desire to rest and who desire for the state not to tell them how to control their own bodies, for the state not to interfere in their relationships with their physicians, I think this is a time when we could be safely called upon to move heaven and earth to make this happen.

Senator Lankin has raised an important question, and it’s really important to state that we still need to hear from the ministers, and I don’t think anything in Senator Moodie’s amendment is meant to preclude a proper Committee of the Whole. But I think that whatever you believe about MAID in general or in this specific instance, we owe it to ourselves and to the Canadians we serve to deliberate thoroughly, properly and efficiently. Now I think I am literally out of voice, so thank you very much for your patience with my croaking.

Honourable senators, I don’t want to talk about the substance of Bill C-62 because I feel like most of you, I am very torn. In my small, rural area, we have practically no mental health service at all. So I really feel torn. Actually, I would be more in support of Bill C-62 than not right now. But the question before us is in regard to having a Committee of the Whole with two ministers. We have that routinely before looking at a bill. So that’s not a concern for me.

What I must say that I found a little difficult was the fact that all of a sudden we have an amendment, but it’s an amendment that I will support because the routine after having the ministers here and us having the ability to question, then at least all senators have the minimum of information, and then it’s sent to committee. Personally, I wish we would act that way all the time in regard to bills, that the minister would come before all of us to talk about their bill and be questioned by all of us, and then, afterwards, the bill could be sent to committee for senators to have a deep dive, as you say.

Essentially, Senator Moodie’s amendment would have a report to the Senate by February 27. Okay. So that gives a full break week of committee work, and that too, honourable senators — maybe not in recent years — but we used to have break weeks that were committee weeks, that committees would go on and study the issues if it was on an urgent basis. I find that this pre-study of Bill C-62 is on an urgent basis.

Before I conclude, I would like to say another thing also. In my previous life in the other place, I was co-chair of a joint committee. It’s a disaster. It was then, and I feel that it is still now. The senators and MPs may have the best wishes in the world to do the best work in the world, but we do not have the same perspective. I think that before we agree to another joint committee, we certainly need to have a very harsh discussion because if the senators in this room had done their own study on this issue, we wouldn’t be here tonight. We wouldn’t be questioning a pre-study. All of that would have been done. We would be talking about the substance.

Honourable colleagues, this process is good. A week ago, I heard that the ministers would be coming around the end of the month. Thank you, Senator Gold, for making it happen this week. Colleagues, I support the amendment and the motion. Thank you.

Would Senator Ringuette take a question?

Yes.

Senator Ringuette, thank you for clarifying the issue. Can you identify the negative consequences that might arise if we adopt Senator Moodie’s amendment?

I don’t have a crystal ball, Senator Cormier, but the fact is that if we adopt the amendment and the February 27 deadline, which falls during a week the Senate is scheduled to sit, we will have only a few days to discuss the report from both committees and make a decision. By then, Bill C-62 might have been introduced in the Senate, which might hold a vote on the bill. Does that answer your question?

Yes.

Honourable senators, I have a few points to make with respect to the process of how we got here, and how we have reasonable and well-prepared discussions.

I would remind people — because some people have made some comments behind my back that maybe suggest I’m coming from another place — that I have supported medical assistance in dying, or MAID, from the beginning. I have supported access to MAID for individuals meeting the criteria that is set out: those who suffer from mental health issues as the sole underlying condition. I have supported Senator Kutcher in his brilliant leadership of getting us to the point of including that amendment in the bill and having it accepted by the House of Commons. I understood the reason for the first extension of that, and I’m at a point now where Bill C-62 and its substance are about whether there would be another three-year extension.

If someone at home were listening to many of the speeches tonight, they might think that the actual regime of MAID is in question, and that if this fails or is passed — or whatever is going to happen — it will have an impact on the fundamental underlying law and the Criminal Code provisions, but that’s not the case. It would, if passed, give a three-year extension before it comes into force.

I want to ensure that everyone realizes that it’s already been passed and is in the law — this is a question of the coming‑into‑force date that we will be discussing. Many of the comments that we have made in discussing this do come from personal places, and my concern does too. This was an issue of discussion between me, my husband and his doctor before his passing. I made a number of calls in December to a number of organizations — community mental health service deliverers in the community and Indigenous leadership — only in the province of Ontario. From my regional background, that’s where my interests lie.

Also, I was the Minister of Health in Ontario, and I have a particular view — which I’ll discuss when we come to Bill C-62 — that is important to the process, as well as the importance of the fact base from clinicians and others who develop and propose policy, which is the democratic governance process. I really do object to some of the comments that have been made about some politicians or bureaucrats. We are all part of the process to reach policy. You can’t implement policy just based on the clinicians’ point of view; we need to understand that.

We also need to understand that when clinicians disagree, what does that mean? Again, we’ll come to this in Bill C-62, but what does it mean when the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health or the chairs of psychiatry or the Canadian Mental Health Association has different points of view than some of the renowned clinicians whom we have heard from in this chamber, or some of the witnesses whom we heard from who hold a similar point of view?

I don’t think there is an “us” and a “them,” but I was so disturbed this evening because that’s exactly how I felt at the beginning of this. All of a sudden, there was an amendment that hasn’t been shared with any of us. That’s highly unusual. Sometimes, Senator Plett, it is a step that the opposition will take; I understand the reasons and how that happens, where we may not be informed. But I never believed that in the new, emerging and reformed — it’s being reformed — Senate of Canada, which focuses on the independence of senators and the relationship, when coming into an important debate like this, we would leave our colleagues with no knowledge of this being moved, except, apparently, a select handful. I find that really surprising, and it is very disappointing to me in the process of exchange. It is not what I would expect of colleagues in terms of how the rest of us are brought into this debate, or left without time to think or respond.

I don’t have any notes. I have scribbles from listening to some of you.

My concern about the committee proposal is the date to report back. That’s my concern. I never object to committee hearings. In fact, I might attend these hearings because it’s relevant to me both personally and professionally. In my role here in the Senate, one of the first bills that I worked on when I joined the Senate was medical assistance in dying.

I’m very concerned about the deadline. There are two arguments that I have heard. First, there is a full week left to deal with it before we leave, and it is reported back no later than February 27. However, let’s presume it’s Tuesday, February 27, in this chamber. There is a Wednesday sitting and a Thursday sitting left that week before there is the school March break and a two-week break. When we come back at the end of that, we will have passed the March 17 date, and this provision will come into full effect as it is without any sense of an extension and a period of time to ensure that we have the readiness. I’m very concerned about those arguments, as the former Minister of Health. Again, we’ll talk about it then.

This date is very concerning to me, and I hope that those who have authored and proposed this understand what they are putting at risk. I have heard the arguments in response to this — it’s what I think Senator Wallin referred to as a coordinating clause. I have been trying to do a little bit as we’ve been sitting here so that I have a full view, and my understanding is that the law would come into full force as of March 17.

If there is a passage of Bill C-62 in the future, it would apply — I think what people have been saying, using other words, but as I read it, I think it means retroactively. We would have a period of time after March 17 in which people would be eligible to apply; people would be making representations on their behalf. Health systems would have to be able to start to respond to that process, and many of them — as we have seen from the letters — clearly the provinces and territories are saying that they are not ready. That’s a point of debate, and we will look at that when we get to Bill C-62.

But if those provinces are not ready to move during that period of time, if people think that they can apply and then apply, and then it gets pulled back because there is another extension — there is some chaos being created here.

So at this point in time, again, because I didn’t know it was coming, I haven’t been able to speak to Senator Moodie or others about what a possible better approach would be. I really think that if there is some genuine desire to hear from witnesses whose accounts weren’t heard before — although I have read the report of the committee, I have a record of the dissenting report and that caused me to look back at written submissions, which is all part of our job too. We don’t just wait until it lands here.

I would really like to see this date moved back so that it is reported — at least tabled and reported before we’re back on February 27 so that we can read these things before we come in here, and it has to go to debate. I don’t know why one senator is looking at me and shaking her head. I’m not reading the body language there, so I will just continue with my own thoughts on this.

Madam Speaker, what time do I have left?

Five minutes and 51 seconds.

Five minutes. Okay.

It seems to me that the chaos that can be created by those who suggest we can very easily just go past March 17, I believe it is not a good process and not a respectful process to the public who are looking for this — those individuals who have been talked about, their personal situation — and/or the myriad systems deliverers and clinicians. Some of the recent things I received were letters from people who were health practitioners in the MAID system and who have not received the training yet. So I think we at least need a few more days.

Is there a way, I ask of those senators, to scope these hearings, and get the voices that you believe were not heard, or were not acknowledged, as well as some of the representatives of things like the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, or CAMH, and others whose voices are very important and saying, “we’re not ready,” remembering that we’re only dealing with this issue of whether or not there should be an extension allowed at this point in time?

So if there is a way to move this date back and to be reasonable in terms of hearings and witnesses and still be respectful of the March 17 deadline and what it means practically in the lives of the people that you have been speaking about so powerfully and correctly — it is their lives that will be put in chaos too by a stop-and-go, stop-and-go. Again, we didn’t have the time to prepare. We weren’t given the courtesy as a group of primarily independent senators to think about this or to bring suggestions or to prepare another subamendment. I regret that. I don’t think it’s a good development in the course of our reform.

But on this particular motion, I think having committee hearings are fine. I think the date puts at risk bringing into effect the existing clause and leaving people starting to question whether it should ever be taken back again with the period of delay. So I think the way it has been written has a cause that maybe was unintended, and I’m sorry if it was, in fact, intended. I’m calling it, and I would appreciate if there was a way that the authors of this could bring the report date back so it’s not vulnerable to the obvious allegation that this is being done to create a situation with us. The provision of the current legislation will come into force before we will be able to finish the debate about whether there should be an extension or not.

I’m not understanding. I’m sorry.

I just pulled up the Senate calendar, and the committee would be authorized — directed — to meet later this week and next week and report on February 27, which is the following Tuesday. I would appreciate seeing a report by February 23. Then we would have February 24, 25 and 26 as an opportunity for us as individual senators who have been following and working on this bill in many ways, to review that and be ready to come back and start the debate on either February 26 or 27 so that we have a few days to actually debate third reading of Bill C-62 and deal with it before the March break occurs.

First, I want to thank everybody for the speeches they have made tonight. It really underscores the importance of thoroughness. I think we are on that road.

Senator Lankin, if it comes into force on March 17, the clause — as I understand clause 3 — puts it as if it did come into force if it is, in fact, adopted. That plus the 90-day waiting period doesn’t put it into chaos. Would you not agree that we need to do the due process?

Senator Lankin, the time has run out. Would you like —

I heard a no.

I did not plan on participating in this debate, and I have to say up front that this is a difficult situation for me as facilitator of a group whose members, I believe, have differing views on this issue.

I am speaking — and I must reiterate this — as an individual senator who also has a right to speak.

This amendment is being presented to us as a procedural amendment. There has been some insistence that there were many shortcomings in the process, the way this file has been handled in the Senate.

We too often avoid saying that a joint committee, which is a committee that represents both chambers, has been studying this issue for a long time. We all have a duty to read the joint committee’s majority report, as well as the four dissenting reports, all of which are available to us. However, not all of us, as senators, have had an opportunity to ask questions directly. Once again, we are being presented with the suggestion that a certain number of senators be appointed to two committees, of which the majority are not members.

Now that we are just a few days away from a deadline with a sunset clause, it is once again being recommended that a small group advise us on an issue for which we now have a bill to study. I have procedural concerns about that, because I am wondering to what extent the Senate as a whole will be objectively informed.

I am trying not to repeat what was said by other senators with whom I am in agreement, but there is something that I want to point out that doesn’t seem to have been addressed yet, and that is the fairness and impartiality of the process to be followed by the two committees if the amendment is adopted this evening.

I heard a lot of people speaking up to support the idea of hearing from witnesses who we know disagree with the bill and the three-year extension. If the motion is adopted, will we have the time, the will and the conditions necessary for the two committees to hear from witnesses who are selected to represent both sides of the issue so that we maintain a proper balance?

The second point I want to make — and some people might be shocked to hear me to say it, but this is what I really think — is that the word “advocacy” has been used a lot tonight. Should we be advocates ourselves, or should we hear from them in committee? This poses a serious problem for me, a fundamental problem. I wonder whether there are ulterior motives behind the pretext of wanting to improve a procedure or method. I’d like us to be clear about these motives.

Are these motives, out of necessity, about ending up with a report that would belatedly recommend amendments, in which case — and there’s been a lot of talk about the calendar — we will have to take into account the fact that the Senate and the House of Commons have a two-week break in March? Isn’t there a risk, in a roundabout way, that the sunset clause would expire and the MAID provisions for people whose only condition is a mental disorder would come into effect?

There’s been a lot of talk about partners and the vulnerable people involved. No one doubts that vulnerable people would be eligible if MAID became available to people whose only underlying condition to be eligible is related to their mental health. That’s not the issue we need to address right now. I’m concerned that, by delaying the process, we could cause the clause to lapse and MAID to become available immediately.

In closing, I not only hope the report we receive will be balanced and unbiased, but I have another consideration, namely, the point of view of the provincial and territorial governments and the role they play in health care management. The Senate is independent from the House of Commons. That is clear, but some of the presentations that I hear leave me with the impression that some think the Senate is above the House of Commons. It is a serious problem.

I hope that the provincial and territorial governments, which are also responsible for health care management, will be heard and that consideration will be given to the opinions they have expressed about immediate implementation and the current capacity of health care networks throughout Canada to provide this service in a safe, quality context.

That is why I think this amendment presents many risks that senators may not have considered. Again, I personally have serious reservations about it. Thank you.

Senator Saint-Germain, it may be the impression of this chamber that I, as a physician, have a certain position. I’m also struggling. My position on MAID has also softened significantly. I’m also trying to understand where we need to be right now. Let’s start with that.

When I put this forward, one of the things we considered — I’m sure you’re aware of it. The question I have is: If this is a pre-study from two committees that we are asking for in this amendment, is it not a fact that the report of a pre-study does not affect coming back to the Senate and it being tabled back in the Senate? It does not affect whether or not the Senate can proceed from second reading to third reading to a vote. Is it not a fact that the Senate is a master of its own timeline despite what happens with the pre-study report? Therefore, is it not a fail-safe that if there were to be a delay in the pre-study, that the Senate could proceed with its own timeline notwithstanding?

You are right, senator, and thank you for this. It is a fact that a pre-study doesn’t lead to a conclusion, but wouldn’t you agree that any senator would then be able to table any amendment to Bill C-62?

I will pose the question this way: Would that not have happened anyway?

It would have happened earlier and in a timelier way, so that we have a democratic vote on a bill — timely — that has a sunset clause.

Will the senator take a question?

Yes.

Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain, for your commentary.

Since having been here, there have been a number of bills that have come through where there have been amendments proposed and maybe all of us did not know that such an amendment would be made. You made the point that this amendment may be questionable because we did not have advanced notice. I’m suggesting that has happened before.

In terms of pre-study, I recall that there was great debate about the pre-study on Bill C-11, and yet we did a pre-study. I also understand that we moved into the examination of the bill.

What I’m hearing tonight is slightly different than what you’re hearing. What I’m hearing, from both sides, is about not only the toughness and the emotion of the decision, but the reality that we’re looking to have more information so that we can be in a better position to make a decision. But I’m not hearing that the committees are going to be directed to take people from just one side of the argument.

My understanding, in my short experience, is that the steering committees will help steer and say, “These are the types of witnesses that we need here.” I would hope that the committees would, in fact, do their job and have witnesses from both sides of the equation, not just the minorities that we’ve heard about tonight, which are very important, but also from others. It’s almost like I’m hearing things from before. Would you agree with that summary?

I consider your question to be: Do you wish that the process, if we go there, is fair within committees, and that both the Legal Committee and the Social Affairs Committee have a balanced panel of witnesses? My answer is yes.

Aren’t I correct in saying that the question before us is not whether vulnerable people with mental health issues will have access to medical assistance in dying? The answer to that is yes, they will. The date has been pushed back to 2027. In light of that reality, isn’t the real question whether this country is prepared to consider this possibility for people with mental health issues?

With that in mind, don’t you think it will take a long time to determine whether that is the case and, furthermore, that if the bill were passed, it would give us the time to measure how quickly Canadians are ready to show they are open to it?

You raise an important point. The provincial and territorial governments have recently shared their views and have all written to the federal government. This is extremely important in the context of implementing the legislation. Of course, we can’t make such a decision lightly, when it would lead to the immediate implementation of this measure without any consequences. As I see it, the process at both committees must be extremely rigorous. Personally, I doubt we’ll have enough time to do really solid work in this context.

Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain, for your intervention. Thank you and all the leaders for encouraging the government to set up this very important Committee of the Whole that we look forward to this week; I think all of us are looking forward to that.

When you set that agreement in place, did you foresee that being the only opportunity for us to have a discussion in this chamber on this important bill? From my perspective, as much as I’m really looking forward to that — and I know it will be highly informative — it’s insufficient. Do you agree that it’s sufficient? Was the intention that the Committee of the Whole would be it, or do you believe that we should have something more, as is represented by this amendment?

Thank you for that question. Actually, this won’t be the only occasion. As with every bill, we will have a second-reading study and then a third-reading study. One of my concerns is that the amendment will deprive us of the possibility to study the bill — those who are not members of the Legal Committee and the Social Affairs Committee — before we are back after the break week.

Then, let’s suppose there are amendments. Out of respect for the other place, we won’t have time to go back. They will be rushed then. That is why, process-wise, I have concerns with this amendment.

Did you foresee, or would you like to see, study of the bill other than in the Committee of the Whole? I’m not getting your answer to that.

We will have the Committee of the Whole, which is in addition to our second reading of the bill in this chamber and then the third reading. All of us who would like to speak to the bill will have the opportunity to do so.

Also, don’t forget that we still have all the documents of the joint committee, including the dissident reports. We have colleagues who were members whom we can ask to give us more information. They will speak in the chamber. We can ask them questions.

The time is very tight. That is why I’m really concerned with this proposal — that it will, once again, delay our study of this bill in the chamber, and not only delay but deprive us of precious sitting days working on this.

I must that admit I’m surprised to hear an argument that we shouldn’t study a bill that is life and death. I have here before us — and I’d like your opinion on this — the legislative summary from the Library of Parliament. I will read some of it for our consideration:

The third clause provides an alternative legislative pathway to extend the temporary exclusion of eligibility for MAID MD-SUMC in case Bill C-62 doesn’t receive Royal Assent before the sunset clause comes into force on 17 March 2024. In that case, clause 3 would amend the Criminal Code directly, so we’ll have to reintroduce the provision prohibiting MAID MD-SUMC, along with a new sunset clause that will expire 17 March 2027.

All of us have received that. I think all of us understand what that means. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do a thorough pre‑study of the bill. I don’t understand — and maybe you can help me understand — why you say that if we do a pre-study, we’re just not doing our work. That’s a difficult argument for me to understand.

My essential point is not about being for or against the extension of MAID for people who have mental illness as a sole condition. I am personally in favour of it.

That’s not the point. The point is the fact that the provinces — those who manage the health systems — say that they are not ready. So what would be the consequences of pushing for it to happen now if the service is not there or not in quality?

I know that your views are different — and I respect your views; it’s not the point — but today, I fear that we don’t measure the consequences of what is proposed. At the end of the day, we might arrive on March 16 with a kind of enforcement of MAID now when the provinces are not ready, and I don’t believe that we will have then abided by the principle of precaution. For the sake of these vulnerable people, it is, for me personally, very important that we are very cautious in making sure that they will receive the excellent services, the important medical services they need.

I completely agree with you that we need to determine whether the provinces are telling us they’re ready. The joint committee never heard from ministers. The joint committee never heard from provinces. The joint committee did hear from providers who said they were ready.

We have a huge discrepancy here. We have to sort that out. We cannot let Canadians — don’t you think we need to sort out this discrepancy? We have completely different perspectives from some provincial leaders, and yet in the same provinces, perspectives that are completely opposite. Don’t you think that would be us not doing our due diligence to try to understand why that might be?

Senator Kutcher, on that, I have to tell you that none of these committees will receive any minister or official from the government, be it territorial or provincial. It doesn’t work like that in federal-provincial-territorial relations.

We know — and it has been made public — the views of all governments in Canada — health ministers — and you have witnesses — many regulators. But regulators are not the managers of the health policies and services in the provinces and territories.

So if it is a key point, we won’t solve it with the amendment that is proposed, because neither committee will receive any official from any provincial government.

Will Senator Saint-Germain take a question?

Yes.

Senator Saint-Germain, respectfully, I disagree that the committee will not hear from provincial or territorial representatives, because they have. The Senate Defence Committee heard from the Premier of the Yukon on defence and Arctic security. This question is very important to me because I, in an effort to understand and review this legislation, have spoken with the provider of medical assistance in dying in the Yukon — in our small population — and they have assured me that the Yukon is, in fact, ready. They have no understanding as to why the Minister of Health signed on to that letter. It seems to me that it’s caught up in politics.

Before I make a decision on this — if, in fact, it’s a political situation and they want to lean on cabinet confidence, so be it. However, there’s only one vote in this place from the Yukon. I need to make the right vote for not only my conscience, but also for the minorities that I represent. I need all the facts. I really believe this pre-study is an important point, and I do believe we have every right to summon whomever we want. They don’t have to answer the question, but we have the right to ask it.

Would you not agree with that?

Thank you for this comment. I will only agree, senator, if the two committees invite the Minister of Health from the Yukon, and if the minister comes.

Honourable senators, I will try not to be as emotional as I was earlier, and I will try to speak to the motion and not to the bill. We have had a lot of both today. A lot of people have been arguing the merits of the bill — who has or has not been heard, and who is or is not being represented. However, I want to put at least a few things on the record, Your Honour.

At the very outset, Senator Lankin asked Senator Wallin whether there had been a leaders’ agreement, and why she wouldn’t be supporting a Committee of the Whole. I don’t think Senator Lankin received an answer, and, of course, I was rude enough to say that Senator Lankin’s time had run out and she couldn’t ask another question. If I had let her go on long enough, she might have been able to wrestle the answer out of Senator Wallin, but she couldn’t in the time that she was given. I want to put on the record that, in answer to Senator Lankin’s question, yes, there was a leaders’ agreement — five leaders. Five leaders agreed that we would have a Committee of the Whole.

This, colleagues, is not the first time that we would be having a Committee of the Whole on a very important issue because of time constraints. This isn’t the first time that this government has sent us a bill very late in the day. I am on record complaining about that many times, just as I was on this. The different leaders will bear me out on my discontent and unhappiness — and I explained it clearly to Senator Gold — but nevertheless, that’s what we have.

One of the reasons, of course, was the joint committee did extensive work. We’re now being heard by members of that same committee that the committee didn’t do a good job. Those people were on that committee. They should have seen to the fact that the committee would do a good job. We had a bill pass here very recently — and I really don’t think the gun bill is as important as a bill that clearly deals with assisted suicide — and I didn’t think the committee had done a great job there because I lost the fight. But when you lose, you eventually accept the fact that you’ve lost. We had some very passionate debates here a month or so ago on a bill relating to the carbon tax for farmers. I didn’t think it was fair the way we lost, but we lost. You haven’t heard me mention that here again in the chamber. You haven’t heard me say that we should bring that issue back again. I’ve accepted the fact that we will have a good government sometime in the next year or year and a half, and we’ll make things right. But, at least, until then, I’ll let it go.

However, this was a clear leaders’ agreement. Now I know that many people here are saying, “We’re independents and a leader doesn’t speak for us.” Well, you elected that person to do something for you. I’m not sure what it is. But Senator Gold, Senator Saint-Germain, Senator Cordy and Senator Tannas — for all of you passionate Canadian Senators Group members, Senator Tannas was there — all agreed to a Committee of the Whole, and we agreed not to have something other than that because there wasn’t time.

Then we received a letter, and I won’t read the whole letter, although I don’t think it’s a confidential letter — it’s not marked as confidential. It’s addressed to the five leaders from two senators. Senator Kutcher already alluded to his appreciation that we had given him time, because he had to go to emergency on the advice of Senator Ravalia, and that, of course, is part of this letter. However, another part of this letter is the following:

Senator Kutcher is on his way to emergency to deal with his illness at the suggestion of Senator Ravalia. Other senators like Senator Osler are also ill.

Senator Osler actually was in the chamber all of Thursday.

The letter continues:

We believe that it is crucial we all be given the opportunity to speak to this crucial issue on Tuesday.

We all know what happens on Thursdays. I’ll paraphrase here: Too many senators don’t want to stay here very long on Thursdays. They want to fly home right after lunch. The letter states:

Too many of our colleagues will have to leave . . . .

— not “have” to leave, but “want” to leave —

. . . and then there are those who are ill. So we’re asking all of you, as leaders, to move this important debate to Tuesday, and we commit that there will be a vote on that same day.

Granted, there will probably be a vote today unless we defer it. Nevertheless, if we don’t, there will be a vote today. However, we were of the mindset that this promise meant that this would be resolved today. We weren’t told — Senator Lankin has said a few times that she was blindsided. We weren’t told there would be an amendment. We were told that we should commit ourselves to a vote. We thought that was a vote on the Committee of the Whole. We asked if there was an amendment. Senator Gold said, “I don’t know. There might be, but I don’t know what it is if there is one.”

Senator Lankin, as leaders, we weren’t aware either. Today, when I read the scroll, we saw that Senator Moodie would possibly bring forward an amendment. We had no idea what it was.

Again, there was an agreement. We agreed because Senator Gold asked us to consider doing something to allow this debate to happen so that everybody could be here, and so that we don’t have it on Thursday. We came up with sitting on Monday. That, colleagues, is why we’re all here on a Monday — because we didn’t want to do this on Tuesday and not give the minister proper time.

Senator Gold — and it’s not my job to defend Senator Gold, and I usually don’t at Question Period — guaranteed us the Minister of Justice, but he said the Minister of Health would not be able to be here because of his travel schedule. I, and the rest of my Senate leadership colleagues, said that the minister could change his schedule. He could take a government jet. He could fly from wherever he was in Canada, and he could darn well be here to come to the Committee of the Whole, or we would not have a Committee of the Whole. I, for one, did not want to agree to it, and neither did the others. Senator Gold went and expended whatever political capital he had to expend in order to make sure that the Minister of Health would be here for the Committee of the Whole — so that we could all ask the minister questions.

Now we’re being told that’s not good enough because the right people have not been asked what their opinion is on it. We had a joint committee that studied this at length. Again, there are senators who don’t like the outcome of it. I’m not going to keep any secrets: I like the outcome of that, and, at the end of the day, I will vote for Bill C-62, if we ever bring it to a vote. But again, that’s not what this is about.

I do want to hear from the minister. I want to ask the minister questions. If there will be committee meetings, we will attend them and ask people questions. But so far, the people who have asked for these committee meetings have only talked about one side of the issue — suggesting that only those people who are asking for assisted suicide have not been heard. There hasn’t been any balance in that part of the discussion, which is why I got a little emotional when I asked Senator Ravalia a question.

There is the other side. How much time are we going to have? How many witnesses are we going to get in the few days that we have before February 27?

Then we have no guarantee, because, again, we were promised something for today. That’s not happening. We’re not having a final vote today. We’re going to vote on an amendment. We have no guarantee that we’re simply voting on whether we have a Committee of the Whole.

If we accept Senator Moodie’s amendment today and on February 27 we have a report from these two committees, if that is, in fact, doable, and they get agreement — I was led to believe that early on, before this debate even started, one of the committee chairs was already asking the steering committee to meet, so somewhere along the line, Senator Lankin, again, somebody knew something that we didn’t know. There are, certainly, some people who know things and others who don’t, but if we get that on time and we get that on February 27, they are going to report. We’re going to get the bill, quite likely this Thursday. Then, after this pre-study is done, the question will come to the Senate and we’ll have second reading debate. What guarantee do we have that the bill won’t then get moved over to the committee again? We have now done only a pre-study. Now the committee will again be able to study it because Senator Kutcher hasn’t had quite enough of the witnesses that he wanted. Now we’ll have committee hearings again. Then we’ll have clause by clause and then third reading debate.

Colleagues, we will do one of two things — or one of three, maybe. We will either shelve this — not finish it — or we will not only have a committee sitting during the break week but the Senate coming back and committees sitting during our March break weeks. If that’s what we want, then fine, but let’s accept that. Then everyone who votes for this amendment better be here and not say, “Well, I have now got what I want but, no, I’m not coming back on March 7. It’s not that important to me.” That’s what’s going to happen. We will have to come back in March to deal with this because we have no commitment. Senator Moodie’s amendment does not say we will not have further committee hearings. What happens if we still haven’t had the answers we like?

We have heard a number of times here that this was a political decision that was made — a political decision made by whom? All the parties voted for this over there, so who is doing the politicking over here? I’m the leader of the Conservative caucus in the Senate and I’m agreeing with the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and over there, Justin Trudeau is agreeing with Pierre Poilievre. Where is the politics? But that’s what we were told here a number of times tonight: that these are political decisions. No, they are not. The decisions were made because the government and the joint committee decided that we are not ready to advance that far.

What’s the harm in waiting? The harm in waiting is some people will live longer. I’m sorry. I really find it strange to believe that that’s a bad thing. People will be forced to live a little longer if we take a little longer.

Again, this is not a partisan issue. The time isn’t there to do this. We are not voting tonight on Bill C-62. We may have different opinions, and I will not be happy at the end of these committee hearings if my witnesses and the people I want aren’t there. And there is going to be blessed little time. There will be a couple of committee meetings, Senator Moodie, and how many witnesses will we have? We were told that the joint committee had 21. I believe that is what I heard tonight. How many are you proposing? How many witnesses will there be at Social and how many at Legal? There is nothing in the amendment that says that. It simply says that we’ll have a meeting on February 15 and we have to report by February 27.

Colleagues, I am strongly opposed to this amendment, and not because I think the bill will pass faster or slower. We will have two ministers here on Wednesday and can ask them all the pointed questions we want. I would even be okay if we proposed having a four-hour Committee of the Whole. But let’s get this done; it has to be done. We are on a timeline here whether we like it or not. We can blame the government for the timeline. I do all the time, so feel free to join me, but we are where we are.

Colleagues, I’m sorry if I have broken confidence here about what we decided at leaders’ meetings, but Senator Lankin asked the question; she didn’t get the answer. This was decided by five leaders.

They don’t always vote the way I want, but I thank my colleagues for their confidence when they elected me to this position. If I make enough bad decisions, they will unelect me, but until then, I thank them for allowing me to make some decisions and for supporting them.

Colleagues, you have also elected leaders, facilitators, liaisons and so on. They also deserve that respect. They do a good job for you.

I often give Senator Gold a very difficult time, but he worked hard to get something done here. I know he finds it difficult because he has so many different factions that he has to work around to ensure that he gets the votes for the government.

I will leave it at that. Colleagues, I hope that you will decide that this is not a good amendment and that we move forward with this bill with all the expediency that we can. Thank you.

Would Senator Plett take a question?

Certainly.

I have a follow-up as well, if that is possible.

Senator Plett, thinking back to our recent experience here in the Senate, almost every budget has a pre-study. Supply bills have pre-studies. Bill C-56 at National Finance had pre-studies. With those agreements, when we made them, was there ever a precedent set where someone forced a committee study after the fact, or did we adhere to that agreement that we made? If we were to make an agreement today, would this not mirror that situation?

First, yes, we have had pre-studies and then still had committee meetings.

Second, there is nothing that is binding us in your amendment. The Rules of the Senate are very clear that we have committee meetings.

I think you would still be able to do a subamendment, which would certainly make your amendment seem more palatable. I’m not saying I would support it, but it would make it more palatable if we had some guarantee as to when we could have a final vote, because your amendment doesn’t guarantee us a final vote ever.

I want to shift the question to: Would you agree, Senator Plett, that leaders’ agreements are subject to the whole chamber and that senators, especially independent senators, reserve the right to propose changes to those agreements subject to the full approval of the Senate? Would you agree that it is all parliamentary privilege to reserve amendments and to keep them confidential or talk about them, if we wish?

First of all, I agree with that, and I agree with your right to ask me a question, and I agree with my right to disagree with you. I take some exception to your comment, “especially independent senators.” You are sitting in caucuses. It’s an oxymoron to say, “I’m an independent group.” But you are sitting in caucuses. Be that as it may, I have my opinion there, Senator Moodie; you have yours.

I have a 14-member caucus. Conservatives are not known to be followers. They are known to be leaders. I have 14 independent people in my caucus as well. First of all, every decision we make, whether they are at leaders’ meetings, whether they are at committee, whether they are anywhere else have to be approved by the full chamber. This chamber can make changes as they see fit.

Earlier today, this chamber had to give leave for Senate Dalphond to withdraw a certain bill. That was subject to the entire chamber. He couldn’t withdraw that on his own tonight, so, yes, everything is subject. It doesn’t mean that I don’t have an opinion on whether we should respect people we elect to certain positions.

Senator Coyle, you have a question?

Senator Plett, thank you for your remarks. I agree with almost everything you said. We have a responsibility here to get this done within a timeline. We need to respect what our leaders have bargained for. I am fully looking forward to that Committee of the Whole. I can’t think that anybody here would not be looking forward to that.

However, I don’t see that it has to be this or this. Why can it not be let’s have the Committee of the Whole, and if we can have the benefit of further study while still meeting our timeline, why would we not do that?

You are absolutely right, Senator Coyle, it can be both. That’s, of course, what we’re debating and then we will have a vote. One thing I will assure you of, Senator Coyle, if we have a vote today and I’m on the losing side of that vote, I won’t come back tomorrow and say, “Let’s vote again on that.” I will accept the results tonight, and that’s what I’m asking everybody else to do.

We had a joint committee that made a decision. They were appointed. Senator Kutcher, Senator Wallin, Senator Martin and Senator Dalphond were the members of that committee.

And Senator Mégie, I’m sorry. They were members of that committee and members of the House, and they brought a decision. The House voted on it and passed it. Now we’re asked to do the same thing.

If we want a committee meeting, fine. We’re short on time. We may just be able, if everything lines up right, to do Senator Moodie’s amendment. But we have no guarantee, Senator Coyle, because there is nothing in her amendment that says what we’re going to do after February 27. It only says that the committee will report at that point. At the end of that week, it’s what I said. We will either somehow manage to vote on the final bill or we will be back here, I’m sure.

Again, I’m not going to help Senator Gold on this, but I’m sure Senator LaBoucane-Benson may not move the adjournment motion on the day that we want the adjournment motion moved at the end of the month.

Maybe I will start by offering an answer to Senator Forest’s very good questions and try to understand what we’re trying to achieve and what we are being asked to consider.

Section 3 of the bill is written in legal terms and, in order to understand it, it’s important to understand what was done previously. The Senate amended the bill to include a second pathway for MAID for people whose death was not imminent, but who suffered from an incurable condition causing unbearable suffering. With the second pathway, the government excluded MAID for those suffering from only one condition when the sole condition was mental illness.

However, in cases where people have heart failure or kidney failure, if they are constantly on dialysis, for example, they have the right to receive MAID. If they are waiting for a transplant, but it looks unlikely that they’ll get one, they can apply for MAID. This is true even if it’s someone with a mental illness that doesn’t affect their ability to recognize their situation and their suffering and to accept or refuse dialysis. We must not forget these nuances.

We told the government that people with mental illness should not be prohibited from accessing MAID unless there are mechanisms in place to ensure that people with incurable suffering who are able to assess their situation can have access, with sufficient safeguards.

The House of Commons, the government and the then justice minister accepted that proposal. The House of Commons voted and a majority accepted the proposal, but they increased our deadline from 18 months to 24 months. Everyone wanted a deadline to ensure that we would be ready if we decided to go in that direction.

Before the 24-month deadline was up, the special committee was re-established, and its mission was to assess whether we were ready. It came to the conclusion that we needed another year and that we needed an expert panel to table a report giving us the broad outline, the training required and all that. Then we would be able to determine whether we were ready.

The committee was re-established in October 2023 to study this very issue, in other words, the two-year deadline, two and a half years later because we were getting close to March 17, 2024. March 17 is a very important date. Are we ready this time? That was the mandate of the joint committee. The Senate was represented on this committee, and the senators had to answer that question, just as members of the House of Commons did. Why is March 17, 2024 important? It is the date of the sunset clause, as Senator Saint-Germain explained so well.

In English, it’s a sunset clause. It means that on March 17, if nothing is done, if no bill is passed, the exemptions will end. Therefore, that very day and the day after and the following week, a person that thinks that he is qualifying but the sole health issue is a mental illness will be able to go knock on the door and ask to be assessed. That is a long process. It’s not going to be given the following day. The law provides for 90 days before the time you’re finally assessed and the time you can receive it and the day you receive it you must still consent to it.

It’s not a depressive person who will walk into a clinic on a Friday night and because they broke up the night before, that will get MAID the following Saturday. Forget about what was said in some papers. But the issue here is that if we do nothing on March 17, access will be in full force.

So section 3 says there are two scenarios. Either Bill C-62 is adopted before that date and, therefore, the date of March 17, 2024, will read March 17, 2027. But you never know in Parliament what might happen. We don’t even know sometimes what will happen in the Senate, and maybe it’s good. When it’s too predictable, maybe it’s a sign of something else.

If this bill is not passed, there is a second provision that says when the bill passes, if it’s after March 17, the day it receives Royal Assent — maybe that same day — then it will no longer be possible to access MAID. If it takes three weeks to get there, if we finally vote on the bill after a full study in March or in April, and the bill is finally adopted, then it will no longer be possible to access MAID. You will have a very special system. Until March 17, nobody can have access to it. If there is a gap, some people may have access to it, and then the gap will be closed.

Colleagues, I invite you not to walk into that. This is the worst scenario of all scenarios. That gap will be legal chaos, which will put the medical profession in a very awkward situation. People will be wondering, “If I do it, but it becomes illegal next week or next month, will I be sued?” No. It’s going to be terrible for doctors, terrible for MAID assessors and terrible for those who will be entering the system, but the door will shut on them. It will be worse than it is now because they will have faint hope that they will get it, and then the door will be slammed shut.

I’m sure that this bill, if it comes into effect, it will happen within less than 90 days after March 17. It will happen a week or a month later. I can bet you we will sit during break weeks, if necessary, in April, and that it will be passed. So the 90‑day period will not be exhausted. Faint hope will apply to all those who apply and start the process within that period. I don’t want that to happen, because it’s adding to people that are suffering on faint hope. We must prevent that.

The answer is that we have to pass this bill or reject it by March 17. If we reject it, this is the end, and it will be accessible forever, until maybe a change of government reinstitutes the exclusions, but that might not be for a year and a half, maybe longer. In the meantime, there will be a lot of things happening. Some people will receive it, and maybe the mood will change, whatever.

The issue that was before the committee — and Senator Wallin referred to my opinion, saying what is being proposed is clearly unconstitutional. Sorry, but that’s not what I wrote. I wrote that what the committee was proposing risked to be declared unconstitutional. Why? Because what the committee was proposing is that the exclusion of access — the denial of access — continues as long as both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice have agreed, after consultation with department officials and all of the provincial and territorial counterparts, that we are ready. Well, I assume if there is a change of government within the next year or year and a half, both ministers will never agree on such a situation.

If that conclusion were reached, then a committee would have to be set up, and that committee would have to work on it at least for about a year before it could come into effect. It was meant to be, as I refer to it in my report, a clearly indeterminate but long period. That was a kind of way that could be read as a permanent exclusion because it depended on the will of two ministers, and we know that politics may bring ministers to change their minds.

The government responded to that, and what did they say? That it will be three years because they read my dissent, I believe — or maybe I heard — and they felt that indeterminate could be easier to challenge than a specific period, so they put in three years. We know we’re extending it for three years. What will happen next year? There will be an election. So don’t think that this issue is going to be dealt with by Parliament in 2025. Either you go for one year or you go for three years because 2025 is a gap year.

That’s what we have. This is what we’re dealing with. This is what has been proposed to us. Let’s not forget about that.

The second point I want to make is that on February 8, the Department of Justice published a Charter Statement acknowledging that sections 7 and 15 are engaged — the right to life and liberty and the right to equality. They said the debate goes on regarding section 1. So the issue that the courts will have to eventually decide, if there is a court challenge, is that a reasonable measure in a democratic society to extend if all the provinces are of the view that they are not ready, if the Collège des médecins du Québec is of the view that they are not ready; if the Quebec legislators say that even if it’s legal according to the Criminal Code, it won’t be accessible in Quebec. These are all parts of the puzzle that we have to think about.

This is an issue that, unfortunately, the Legal Committee will not decide. The Legal Committee will not be able to do a better report than the Charter Statement I read. I invite you to read it. It’s on the Department of Justice website. It’s a Charter Statement of February 8.

In my view, this proposal to send it to the Legal Committee is to get what? Well, I’m telling you it is to get less than a Charter Statement. In a week, the Legal Committee can hear from a few witnesses and prepare a report, but it won’t be as good. The second issue is that it won’t be up to us to decide what is acceptable and reasonable under section 1. It should be left to the courts. The courts are those who must answer that question.

Is what has been proposed clearly unconstitutional? In my view, no. It’s a debatable issue, so it’s not up to us to decide; it’s up to the courts. I think that’s what everybody must understand, and I’m getting a bit tired of hearing that I said this bill is unconstitutional. I did not say that. My dissenting opinion is full of nuances in a context which has evolved, and this new context is three years, not an indefinite period. That’s the second point.

Maybe the Social Affairs Committee could hear from witnesses, but I’m concerned about what the witnesses are supposed to be coming for. I hear now that we want to test — and, sorry, I was supportive of the idea of having Social Affairs give us more information, but what I’m hearing tonight is certainly different from what I thought. What I’m hearing tonight is that we’re going to challenge the provincial assessment of the situation. Sorry, colleagues, it’s not up to us to do that.

If the four parties in the House of Commons come to the conclusion that we should postpone because we’re not ready for three years because the provinces are all saying they are not ready, all the elected officials in these provinces have legitimacy because they are elected. They may make wrong decisions — that’s their thing — but they deliver health care in the provinces, they assess their abilities, they know their resources and we know there is a critical shortage of mental supports for those who are suffering from mental illness across the country. It’s unfortunate, but maybe it’s a reason to be more cautious. It’s like having access to palliative care. I’m for MAID because I know there’s access to palliative care, and Canadians can choose the alternative they prefer. I’m not so sure if this alternative is as available with mental illness and mental health supports and care. These are things we should consider.

Finally, we’re not rubber-stamping, and we haven’t been doing so over the last five years. We amended 30% of the bills that came through here, and of the bills we did not amend, half were budget bills we could not amend. We have a good batting average so far. Even recently, the government bill that Senator Moodie herself proposed was amended, despite her reluctance, by Senator Cormier. We are doing our work.

But here, there is an urgent call to act, and it must be done by March 17. Quite frankly, the more I hear about the proposed amendment, the less inclined I am to support it. Let’s do the job we do properly. Let’s study the bill. The ministers will both appear. A political choice was made by elected officials across the country. The ministers will come to explain. At the leaders’ meeting, I was representing my group that morning because Senator Cordy was in snow over her head, and we agreed that the ministers should come this week, not in two weeks from now, because we wanted people to ask questions and have time to listen to their answers and to think about it.

The time has come now, colleagues, to listen to these ministers. A political decision has been made. Let’s listen to them and challenge them if need be. Some of the findings might be wrong, but let them explain their political decision. Thank you.

I will draw a bit on what my colleague Senator Dalphond said. I’m rather shocked by the harsh criticisms that some senators have levelled at the joint committee, which heard from approximately 200 witnesses and wrote three reports at various times over a three-year period.

I would have loved to be part of that committee, but priority was given to doctors and lawyers. I watched what was happening from afar, but I read a lot about the subject.

Claiming that this report is worthless because it obviously does not correspond with what you wanted it to say and because it did not set out the conclusion that you wanted it to calls into question all of the parliamentary work that we do here, because all we have are imperfect reports and committees. When I arrived in the Senate, there was a very biased initial report that I criticized. Our political process has its flaws.

That being said, I read the joint committee’s most recent report and it made no secret of the fact that opinion was divided. What the report did was indicate that A thinks this, B thinks that, and C thinks this. The report described a variety of different views on each of the issues, such as irremediability and suicide. This is not some major report that will go down in history, but it made no secret of the fact that opinion was deeply divided on these issues.

In the end, the committee decided to choose and rely on the experts who recommended caution. You are right to say that the experts advising caution were outnumbered by the experts saying to move forward. However, is this a math exercise, where we can say that a certain percentage of people said such-and-such and therefore it is true?

In my opinion, it is wrong to believe that the only thing this committee was supposed to do was establish protocols. No. Behind these protocols, there are principles and questions having to do with the state of our knowledge, the availability of existing care, the scientific and ethical grey areas, and the precautionary principle, which we talked about here. I think it is absurd for anyone to claim that the committee could just talk about protocols on how to administer medical assistance in dying and not listen to the witnesses who talked about it more broadly, because the situation can’t be reduced to a series of protocols.

To roundly denounce the entire process, even though I’m sure it had its flaws, is to deny part of our democratic system. We could all do that with the committees we sit on, but we don’t do it because, generally speaking, we believe that democratic debate is more or less balanced. That is the first thing.

The second thing that struck me came from Senator Kutcher. You said that we must hear from those who want and have been calling for MAID for months. These are obviously appalling stories. However, is it our role to do that right at a time when there is an attempt to delay MAID? Where is the balance in hearing only one side of the story? There are also people with mental illness and mental disorders who, on the contrary, are very afraid of MAID being an option. They are afraid for all sorts of reasons, good and bad, but they are thinking, “If I completely lose it, am I going to die?” This debate is not a simple one for many people with psychiatric issues. I get letters from people who are afraid. People like that exist too.

I really wonder about the reason for setting up this committee, which will obviously not exist for long and will not be able to hear from 200 experts as the joint committee did. Is it posturing? Is it a symbolic gesture, just so we can say that we really did our job? It’s also part of our job to read what has been done elsewhere.

You said we hadn’t heard from the provinces. Not all provinces are willing to appear in committee. I’m thinking of the Quebec government, which consistently refuses to come and explain its positions. However, on the issue of medical assistance in dying for people suffering from mental disorders, the province does have an opinion. Quebec considers itself well ahead on these issues. The Quebec select committee on end-of-life care produced a very serious report, interviewing a number of people and saying that not only were we not ready, but that opinion was starkly divided on the issue of irremediability and suicide, and that going forward . . .

I want to read a sentence from the report that is absolutely staggering:

We are faced here with the grim prospect of individuals obtaining medical aid in dying rather than appropriate medical follow-up that would favour a fully satisfying life.

This brings me to the other issue, namely the cruel lack of psychiatric care. We had this debate three years ago. I was told by several people that that was irrelevant. Some people aren’t interested in debating the lack of care. They want to stick to the constitutional and medical aspects. However, this is a societal, human and ethical issue. Everyone has a say, whether you’re a constitutional expert, a doctor, or a former journalist who doesn’t specialize in this field at all.

You said that you didn’t hear from the provinces. I would like to point out to you that, unlike the government, the Collège des médecins du Québec largely supports medical assistance in dying for people with mental disorders, but its representative, Mauril Gaudreault, told the committee that there was still work to be done in order to be ready.

Basically, we are not ready. It seems to me that that is the clinching argument for not moving forward. The fact that the profession is divided and that we still don’t know everything about all of these issues justifies holding a committee of the whole. It justifies not taking the risk of missing the March 17 deadline so as not to create chaos, if that is what happens. Given how little time we have to conduct a study, given the hundreds of witnesses that we have heard from over three years, objectively, I don’t see what good that would do, other than enable us to check a box saying that the Senate did its work and that it examined the issue. We have been examining the issue for three years.

The last thing I wanted to say is that a minority of experts told the special committee that we needed to wait, that we aren’t ready, yet some senators are saying that this makes the committee biased. Let me take you back three years. There were studies in committee. The Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs heard from several witnesses, about 20 of whom specialized in psychiatric care, and, believe it or not, even they were divided on this. Did that stop us from voting for an amendment opening up MAID to psychiatric patients? Not at all. At the time, the fact that the committee was hearing from experts who were divided did not seem to be a methodological problem, so we moved on quickly with the thought that there was some openness to this. If I remember correctly, at the time, three years ago, there was no in-depth study on this particular aspect of MAID, and we decided to move forward. I have said enough.

Would Senator Miville-Dechêne take a question?

Yes.

Thank you for your comments. When I was the mayor of Cornwall, I was criticized because my meetings always ran long. That was because I let people come and talk to us. I always want a little more. It’s a trait of mine.

The question that I want to ask you has to do with the next three years. Could a pre-study, even if it is a short one, send a message to the country and the government — which government, we don’t know — that we must not remain paralyzed over the next three years and that we need to do something? If we put this issue off for another three years, then won’t we just be wasting those years doing nothing? Could a pre‑study send a message to the government?

I wouldn’t overestimate the amount of media attention that a Senate pre-study on this issue would get. If you want to talk about it, go to the media, make a statement, send out a press release. I’m not sure a pre-study has the same effect. It would be great if it did, but it does not. Not everyone listens to us that closely.

I understand what you mean about always wanting to know more, but we have studied this subject so much over the last three years. Hearing from 200 witnesses over a three-year period is no small feat. I understand that things were not perfect, but the witnesses were there. There was testimony; we can read it. The reality is that, at the end of the day, you’ll see that there is no consensus on mental illness and its irremediability, or on the fact that it is very difficult to distinguish the idea of suicide from a genuine desire for medical assistance in dying. I am not sure we will get there in the near future. The conversation will have to continue for the next three years, but I don’t know if that is possible.

What happened in Belgium, for example, if I remember correctly, is that they realized there was a problem because requests for MAID from people with mental disorders exploded. They realized that some people were suffering terribly. In such cases, it absolutely must be the very last resort. They realized that they had to be able to offer specialized services. They created an intensive psychiatric unit precisely for these extremely difficult cases. When someone was approved for MAID, they would also be told about these services that were designed specifically for cases like theirs, and they would be encouraged to start there. The notion that all reasonable treatments should be tried first wasn’t included in our legislation, for all sorts of reasons. We could learn a few things from the two countries that have done it. They have made a bunch of mistakes, since this is so complex, but they have found a way to lower the risk of abuse.

Thank you, senator.

I want to be clear that we’re in favour of a balanced, thoughtful review. Don’t you think we should have that? Don’t you think we should challenge the idea, if it’s wrong, that the people who are applying for MAID with a sole condition are really applying for MAID, not because then can’t get access to care — it’s a bit of a red herring — they had decades of care and not getting well.

The question I would like you to answer is: Has the government proven to us that it is necessary to exclude people for three years? Has it proven that to us? We’re not going to get that answer from the ministers only. We need to look more deeply. Don’t you think that we need to ask that question of the government? Has it proven that it needs to have for three years?

The time has expired.

I won’t be long. It’s time to make a decision.

I would say this is an unusual set of circumstances that we have where we have a debate on process. We have the subject matter that has been studied by several committees — joint committees, as well as Senate committees at different times.

For those of you who weren’t here — many of us weren’t here — the Senate was the architect of the sole condition being mental illness. We sold this to the government. They weren’t planning this.

Now, you can say it’s because they’ve received evidence that’s disputed here on whether or not we’re ready but, for whatever reason, they’ve lost their heart. They’re proposing to push this off beyond the life of their government to somebody else. That’s the reality.

This is not something we run into every day here. It deserves this kind of debate. I want to put my comments on the record following Senator Plett and Senator Saint-Germain about the deal that was made.

There was no deal. There was a discussion, an agreement amongst all of us. All of us considered thoughtfully that the Committee of the Whole process was the best way to go under the circumstances.

There is only one of us at the leaders’ table who can deliver a block of votes without having to check with anybody, and it isn’t me.

It is Senator Gold.

We spoke at length about the fact that this was not going to be something we were easily, as a group, going to come to a consensus on how to go forward. All we had was our own best judgment on how to do it. Senator Gold has an obligation to put a proposal forward.

We talked about the fact that there could be amendments. We discussed the request to have Senator Kutcher here, when he was in the hospital, to give him an opportunity to speak to all of us while we made the decision.

We all agreed — and we always agree — that it’s the collective wisdom of senators here that will make the decision on how to move forward. We’ll deal with it, whatever it is.

I have not changed my mind. I believe that the best way forward is a Committee of the Whole process, given all of the circumstances, including how emotionally charged this is; how much time has been spent on this in joint committees and committees and the debates we went through to put mental illness into the government’s hands and have them accept it. Senator Miville-Dechêne has reminded me. I’m not sure what it is we would gain.

This is deeply personal for each of us. There is more data, information and testimony than we could ever individually absorb already available to us.

In the same way as it is time tonight to make a decision, in the next few weeks we will have to come to our own decisions. We are armed with enough information to make it.

Thank you.

Are senators ready for the question?

On amendment, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Moodie, seconded by the Honourable Senator Patterson, that the motion — may I dispense?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

I think the “nays” have it.

I see two senators rising. Is there an agreement on a bell?

Is there leave that the bells ring for 15 minutes?

The vote will be held at 10:36.

Call in the senators.