Thank you, honourable senators. I have a brief intervention on this particular amendment. I wanted to note a few different things.

First of all, there is no definition of "psychiatrist" in this amendment of Senator Carignan, and there isn't a definition in this bill. Also, I note that "psychologist" is not included as one of the types of medical practitioners that could be accessed for this particular assessment.

As well, colleagues, the federal Liberal government has previously ignored amendment recommendations to require a psychiatric assessment for people who have a concurrent mental illness along with also having a grievous physical illness, so I'm wondering why Senator Carignan believes that the Liberal government would accept this particular request for a psychiatric assessment for everyone who is not at end of life. I'm wondering if Senator Carignan has assurance from the federal Liberal government that they support this particular portion. Does he have this assurance from the Senate Liberals that they support this particular portion? I am wondering if he has assurance from those senators who represent the government in this chamber, that he has their approval of that particular portion.

I want to let my honourable colleagues know that it was actually judges in Alberta who agreed on the assisted suicide that was done last month with a patient who had a solely psychological non-terminal illness. We heard testimony about this particular case at the Legal Committee this week. We heard from the lawyer of that patient that three doctors approved that patient's assisted suicide. In this particular case, it was an extremely rare psychiatric disorder, and, with all the work I have done on mental health for several years, I have never heard of that condition before. Yet the only psychiatrist who approved the assisted suicide never met the patient, only reviewed the file. The assisting doctor who was willing to do the assisted suicide also never met the patient and did the consultation by FaceTime. Only one of those three doctors even met that patient, and judges approved that assisted suicide last month.

Lastly on this brief intervention, I want to note for honourable colleagues that Senator Carignan's amendment (1.2)(b) states:

(b) two independent medical practitioners confirm that the person was informed of

And it lists different other things. However, subparagraph (iv) states:

the risks associated with medical assistance in dying;

I am wondering what that phrase means. What does "risks associated with medical assistance in dying" mean? Death?

Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Batters will you take a question?

Senator Batters: Yes.

Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck: Thank you, Senator Batters. You were asking some of the questions that were in my mind as well.

Both of us are from Saskatchewan. I know that you know as well that psychiatrists are in great demand. There are probably not enough psychiatrists to serve our province, particularly in northern Saskatchewan. Would you consider that there could be someone other than a psychiatrist who could confirm that the person was mentally competent? For instance, you mentioned psychologists. Would there be any other professional people that you might consider could replace the psychiatrist in that kind of capacity?

Senator Batters: Unfortunately, I know all too well the need for more mental health care and more psychiatrists throughout our country and in Saskatchewan as well. That's why I asked about the possibility of a psychologist.

I do agree that those types of assessments are necessary to make sure that somebody is properly consenting. I just want to make sure that people are receiving the care that they need and that the strictest safeguards are in place for a procedure that has no do-over. This needs to be done correctly, but I also want to make sure that, for people who need the help, this is what they actually want and not because they are dealing with a mental health condition that might be giving them tunnel vision because they are really not sure what they want. I want to make sure there is proper access. At the same time, I think that we don't want to make it extremely wide open. We want to make sure that there are the strictest safeguards possible.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Batters, will you take another question?

Senator Batters: Yes.

Senator Carignan: Senator Batters, I want to reassure you by pointing out that paragraph (c) states:

(c) an independent psychiatrist confirms that the person has the capacity to provide informed consent to medical assistance in dying.

Don't you think that this precaution addresses your concern about protecting people with mental illness who wouldn't have the capacity to give free and informed consent? Our aim is to protect people who might request medical assistance in dying without being fully aware of what they are asking for or able to grasp its impact. Don't you think that asking an independent psychiatrist to assess that would be an additional safeguard in line with your desire to protect people with mental illness?

Senator Batters: I agree that it's an important additional safeguard. That's why I want to make sure it's effective and will actually be accepted by the other side.

Yesterday, this chamber passed an amendment, and before it was even voted on, the Minister of Justice indicated that it would not be accepted by the federal government and that it would be sent back here. I want to make sure that with such an important safeguard, particularly for an issue like mental health — and this is important to me as I have spent a lot of time and effort dealing with this issue for the last several years — it's as effective as it can be. That's also why, Senator Carignan, I want to find out if you have actually received some assurance from the Senate Liberals, the government senators in the caucus and the federal Liberal government that they will actually go ahead with this particular provision.

Senator Carignan: We have to be creative in how we ask our questions. Obviously, Senator Batters, the Senate has the authority to pass and amend bills, and I don't think the common practice is to ask the other place if it plans to accept our amendments.

Don't you think that it would be more prudent for us to try to come up with a bill that is comprehensive, that balances the rights of people who have access to medical assistance in dying and the protection of the most vulnerable people, and to pass such a bill within a comprehensive system? We can then return the bill to the other place and its members will have the opportunity to assess its merits at that time.

Senator Batters: Yes, Senator Carignan, I want to make sure that we have the appropriate safeguards in place. I accept your statement that you can't get the assurance from the other side, but I'm sure that you have been seeking the assurance of senators in this honourable chamber. I'm wondering if you have assurance from the Senate Liberals that they support this particular portion of your amendment and also from the government senators in this chamber. I'm assuming that you would have had those discussions with them, given your support for the amendment last night.

Also, so this amendment is properly set out, I want to make sure that that particular definition of "psychiatrist" is included because it isn't included in the amendment and it isn't in the bill.