Discussion · Government Orders
Yves Perron Bloc Québécois
“This bill bans people with mental illness from choosing medical assistance in dying. I believe this ban is against the Constitution. The courts will strike it down years from now, and vulnerable people will suffer and spend money on lawsuits in the meantime. We cannot vote for a bill that violates the Constitution.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are two issues in this bill. There is the issue of granting access for patients with a serious, recurring and incurable mental illness, and there is the issue of granting access with advance requests. We are disappointed with the denial of access on the basis of a mental illness, because we think that excluding a whole group from the outset, regardless of how their cases might be analyzed, may be unconstitutional. In fact, we do not just think that is the case; we are quite certain. That really concerns us. How can we vote in favour of a bill when we know that it will be struck down as unconstitutional? The problem is that it will be found to be unconstitutional five, six, seven or eight years from now. In the meantime, people who are already vulnerable, people who already have no money and no resources will experience untold suffering. They will have to pay legal fees, organize a campaign and spend an incredible amount of time on legal proceedings. I do not think that is right. I would remind members entering the House for oral question period that some members are giving speeches. I would appreciate it if they could keep it down, because this is a serious matter that needs to be discussed with care. When we hear members speaking loudly, as is the case right now—”
Mr. Speaker, there are two issues in this bill. There is the issue of granting access for patients with a serious, recurring and incurable mental illness, and there is the issue of granting access with advance requests. We are disappointed with the denial of access on the basis of a mental illness, because we think that excluding a whole group from the outset, regardless of how their cases might be analyzed, may be unconstitutional. In fact, we do not just think that is the case; we are quite certain. That really concerns us. How can we vote in favour of a bill when we know that it will be struck down as unconstitutional? The problem is that it will be found to be unconstitutional five, six, seven or eight years from now. In the meantime, people who are already vulnerable, people who already have no money and no resources will experience untold suffering. They will have to pay legal fees, organize a campaign and spend an incredible amount of time on legal proceedings. I do not think that is right. I would remind members entering the House for oral question period that some members are giving speeches. I would appreciate it if they could keep it down, because this is a serious matter that needs to be discussed with care. When we hear members speaking loudly, as is the case right now—