Louis Villeneuve

“Mr. Speaker, I will come back to what I was saying earlier, when things were a bit chaotic in the House. Bill C-41, on medical assistance in dying, is extremely important. This is a subject that must be handled with care and seriousness. It must be addressed conscientiously. The bill addresses two aspects: mental illness and advance requests. I will begin by talking about mental illness. To postpone implementation indefinitely is, in effect, to cancel it altogether. There are people who are suffering immensely. There may not be many people who are eligible, but they do exist. In effect, we are telling those people that they are being abandoned. Why are they being abandoned? It is because the federal government is always playing catch-up with the courts on these sensitive issues and lacks the political courage to act. This is a complex and sensitive issue. That is why we must be careful. I will give an example. Why has the government not already asked the Supreme Court for an opinion on whether the bill we are about to vote on is constitutional? All the government has to do is ask. If that is not done and this bill is passed as is, it means that these people are considered too vulnerable to exercise informed judgment, but not so vulnerable that they should not be forced to hire a lawyer and sue to do what the government itself refuses to do. The government has a duty to protect its citizens in different types of circumstances, including these circumstances. Of course, this needs to be regulated carefully, but the rights of every individual must also be respected. That is the issue that concerns us the most. I would remind members that the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, established by the House of Commons and the Senate, recommended that medical assistance in dying and advance requests be authorized under the Criminal Code so as not to encroach upon the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. The committee further recommended that all aspects relating to care be defined and developed by the Government of Quebec and the provincial governments. We are well aware that not every province is at the same stage and that, once again, Quebec is ahead in this area because it is fundamentally a social issue. That is an observation of a general trend, not a judgment. Nevertheless, we must respect these areas of jurisdiction. We must ensure that the wording of the Criminal Code does not unduly restrict the application of Quebec’s laws. That is our main request. I was pleased to hear the minister, in response to the question I asked earlier this morning, extend an invitation and open the door to a meeting with our critic, who I believe is one of the country’s leading experts on these issues. We hope that this meeting will take place in a conscientious spirit and with a genuine willingness to engage. Concerning advance requests, it is important to keep in mind that the Criminal Code takes precedence over Quebec legislation. We exist in a federation—for now, in any event—so the conditions should not be too restrictive. I will repeat the question I raised this morning. Quebec’s legislation uses the criterion of conditions considered intolerable, while the federal legislation says that advance requests do not apply if the suffering can be relieved through reasonable means. What does “reasonable means” mean? Who gets to decide whether the means are reasonable, if the patient is incapacitated? That is the crux of the issue. The patient is the one who should make that decision, not caregivers, who might be tempted to interpret the legislation according to their own personal values. I know it is not an easy task. Making such decisions must weigh heavily on the assessment panel. Their task is extremely serious and grave, but it is important not to lose sight of the person’s wishes. That is why it is important to sit down and get this right. We are again disappointed by the bulldozer approach the Liberals are taking. We are being asked to rush this bill through. We got the report back in April, but this bill is only being introduced now, in late October. We are told that this is urgent. Can we carry out our work conscientiously and in a non-partisan manner for once? Fundamental issues like this one must be dealt with conscientiously.”