Yves Perron

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I will of course continue in a similar vein. I also want to thank my colleague, the member for Montcalm, for all the thoughtful and empathetic work he has put into this, because that is what is needed on this kind of bill. We are talking about human suffering. He has done comprehensive and rigorous work on MAID over the past seven years. I know for a fact that he made a significant contribution to all the legislation that we have discussed and passed since then. I say “since then” because, obviously, this is an ongoing discussion. There is one criticism I have for the government, and I am sure many will agree with me. The report was tabled in the spring, the government introduced the bill, and now it is urging the House to pass the bill fast, even though we have been talking about this issue for years. This may be a new way of doing things, now that the government has a majority. The government may not be as interested in hearing what the opposition on the other side of the House thinks. However, majority government or not, I think we should take the time to study bills like this one, which, as I said, deals with human suffering. This issue is a very human issue. We should take the time to go further, instead of imposing something and saying that it is this or nothing. That is more or less what is happening. One of the first things I would like to discuss about the bill is its constitutionality. We are being asked to take a position on a bill that is basically twofold: the issue of permanently excluding mental disorders from the legislation and the whole issue of advance requests for MAID. When we know that this is discriminatory or, to keep things hypothetical—despite knowing for a fact that it is discriminatory—when we suspect that discrimination is involved, we have to determine whether the bill is constitutional. Voting for something unconstitutional would not advance the cause of people who are suffering. The government has had years to seek an opinion on the matter from the Supreme Court, but it has not done so. To me, that is irresponsible. It should seek the court’s opinion so we do not end up needing to repeat the same work again or forcing people in pain to prove that they deserve access to certain end-of-life services. That is one of the first points I want to make. I am not saying that it outweighs the others on substance, but on form, at least. We are already up against a problem here, and the government is trying to impose a solution without even knowing whether it is constitutional. Furthermore, no proposal is being made to divide the bill and, for instance, introduce one bill that we could vote on and seek an opinion for the other. We will now move on to the bill’s two purposes. The first is the matter of shelving the bill indefinitely or perhaps even permanently. I heard a member opposite say that the bill was not necessarily being shelved permanently and that we could maybe come back to it one day. Unlike him, I would say that we should strike while the iron is hot, because there are people who are still suffering right now. There are people who are suffering who are being excluded from the legislation. I spoke about discrimination earlier. They are being excluded, and we need to discuss that now. Just because a discussion is difficult and just because there are differences of opinion does not mean that we should put off having these difficult and demanding debates. It is difficult because it is a matter of beliefs. It is an emotional issue. There are, of course, various schools of thought on the matter, but the fact remains that these decisions must be reasonable, rigorous and science-based. As my colleague said several times, no one here is a psychiatrist. We need to hear from everyone. Even during the committee study, I do not think that we heard from everyone. We did not hear from people who are struggling with mental health issues and who are currently excluded from the bill. We heard from other witnesses. If we want our work to be completely objective and we really want to deliberate responsibly, then we need to hear from everyone. Perhaps, first and foremost, we should be listening to those who may wish to request MAID at some point, regardless of whether that request is ultimately granted. In Quebec, we believe that every individual has the right to choose for themselves what constitutes a healthy and dignified life. That is one thing. I get the impression that the reluctance to ask difficult questions stems from preconceived notions. That is why it is important to conduct an objective study and to engage directly with those affected in order to better understand the issue. What I heard earlier astonishes me. It shows me exactly where we have landed in certain aspects of the debate. We are talking about access to mental health care. That needs to be improved. However, I see that a sort of calculation is being made, and the assumption is that greater access to mental health care will mean less need for MAID. That alone tells me that the very premise of what MAID is has not been understood. That is a huge issue. I believe we need to talk about that, particularly given that we are dealing with stereotypes and preconceived notions here. People think that someone is going to walk into a doctor’s office and say that they are depressed, that they are having dark thoughts and suicidal ideations, so they want MAID. I have heard that before in the House. I am paraphrasing, those are not the exact words, but we can certainly find that in the Hansard. That is where things stand, to a certain extent, so we must not stop discussing this. At worst, let us split the bill, because there are people who are suffering. We want the advance requests to move forward, but we also need to resolve this issue. We cannot hide behind the excuse that it is too difficult and that we cannot address it. The second point is in fact the issue of advance requests. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé talked about it already. Advance requests are available only in Quebec. What we in the Bloc Québécois fear is that the federal law, which takes precedence, will be more restrictive than what already exists in Quebec. We want the laws to be harmonized. My concern is that the government may not agree with what Quebec is doing now. Why would the government not use terms that have already proven effective in Quebec and with which the members of the Bloc Québécois and Quebeckers in general agree? In any case, 80% of Quebec’s population agrees with MAID and advance requests. We have a strong consensus. Let us just say that the percentage of people who support this is higher than the percentage of voters who supported the government in the last election. In short, people agree and they are open to the idea, but we do not want to lose out. We do not want the federal government to set us back or cause more people to suffer. I am also thinking about doctors. What will they do? Through the Criminal Code, the federal government will have the power to dictate what Quebec does. It would restrict what is permitted to less than what we currently have. This is truly a huge concern for us. The minister said earlier, in response to my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, that he was ready to talk. Well, my colleague from Montcalm has raised this matter several times. He has already brought it up. I think we need to take the time to discuss this. We cannot be steamrolled into rushing this discussion. We need to see what will be done so we can ensure that we are properly defending our constituents. As I said, we do not want to go backwards. I would like to make one final point. This addresses a concern that one of my opposition colleagues raised earlier. He said that doctors did not agree and that there was a medical consensus. However, the Collège des médecins du Québec agrees that a blanket ban should not be considered. Everyone in Quebec is ready to have this discussion. We in the Bloc Québécois are ready to have this discussion so that certain individuals with mental health disorders can benefit from this measure. Again, this does not apply to everybody. There needs to be a discussion. I urge all members of the House to show the utmost compassion, to strive to set aside their biases and to get informed. We are talking about science here. The people on whom our health care system depends are fully capable of telling us what could be done in this case. I hope that the bill will respect Quebec and, of course, respect those who are suffering.”