“Mr. Speaker, we in the Bloc Québécois have a major concern. We fear that the Canadian law will become more restrictive than the existing law in Quebec. As members know, Quebec is a leader in this area. I would like to draw the minister’s attention to the fact that, under the Quebec law, an assessment is made to determine whether a person’s suffering is intolerable before MAID is permitted. The federal law states that MAID will not be provided if a person’s suffering can be relieved through reasonable means. The previous question was about who will make this decision. The Bloc Québécois is very concerned about who will make this decision. Is the minister open to sitting down with our critic to further examine this issue and make the necessary amendments to the bill?”
Statement grade
A
The average of Signal, Relevance, Reasoning, Respect and Clarity. Reasoning rests on one conclusion, too few to hold the grade down.
Average 94 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Promise 13%Reasoning 61%Claims 26%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Promise · 15 wordsI will definitely need to continue this discussion with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, Vague promiseReasoning · 15 wordsbecause I disagree with the substance of his comments and need to provide further clarification.Claims · 31 wordsI do not believe the law currently in force in Quebec needs to be amended, since there is no conflict.What is more, the new bill includes the words “intolerable suffering”, 1Reasoning · 58 wordswhich is essentially the same thing.If some clarification is needed, I would be very happy to discuss that, because it is essential to collaborate with the province that offers these services.I think there are opportunities to clarify some of the details to ensure that the bill does not conflict with the legislation in la belle province.
