Analysis · beta

Luc Thériault

Bloc Québécois on Medical Assistance in Dying Safeguards Act 2026-11-04

Replying to Élisabeth Brière (Liberal)

“Madam Speaker, I really want to thank our colleague from Montcalm, who has championed this issue and advanced it with great rigour. He has done a lot of work. I had the great pleasure of serving on the special committee, and I really want to point out how passionate the member is about this subject. We heard it in his speech. Advance requests are already a big step forward. We hear about the need for advance requests in our communities, although our Conservative colleague was unable to tell us what she was hearing from her constituents on the matter. I can speak to this from my own experience. I worked as a notary for nearly 30 years at a time when MAID did not exist, and people would ask me to include something about it in their living will. They said that, if MAID ever became legal, then they wanted to have something in writing. Since this bill directly addresses a need that has been expressed by our loved ones, our seniors and people who are suffering, as our colleague so rightly pointed out, why is the Bloc Québécois opposed to Bill C-41 as it now stands? Does the Bloc not believe that it would be a good idea to pass this step forward and continue the debate on certain aspects of the bill?”

Not analysed yet

A requested analysis is usually ready within half an hour; come back to this page or reload it.

Mr. Speaker, the main reason is that the bill introduces the concept of “reasonable means” of alleviating suffering when a person no longer has capacity. It is version 2.0 of the phrase “reasonably foreseeable natural death”. In practice, this will create confusion in clinical settings. That is what the practitioners I have consulted are telling me. That is why I believe that, if the government truly intends to model this legislation on Quebec’s law, then it should adopt the wording used in Quebec rather than inventing new concepts, especially concepts that could create uncertainty in clinical practice. That is the main reason. That is why I talk about ordinary means. The lady I was referring to will be given some sort of medication, and she will no longer be a nuisance. Does that constitute conditions considered tolerable in the eyes of someone who made an advance request and who, under this bill, is being told that their wishes will be set aside? This goes to the very principle of advance requests. The Quebec law is subtle. It refers to clinical judgment and does not refer to “reasonable means”.