Discussion · Government Orders
Luc Thériault Bloc Québécois
“This bill should use Quebec's rules for medically assisted dying. Quebec lets patients decide if their suffering can be tolerated, while this bill could allow heavy drugs to keep patients quiet against their wishes. This bill also discriminates against people with mental illness and breaks the Constitution.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North spoke about Quebec’s approach to advance requests. It was a long and rigorous process, but we came up with legislation. He says that process should be respected, but when it comes to administering medical assistance in dying, rather than introducing the notion of reasonable means to relieve intolerable suffering, as his bill does, why not use the wording in the Quebec legislation, which refers to determining whether an individual is experiencing suffering that cannot be relieved under conditions the patient considers tolerable? A person’s conditions could be completely intolerable and yet, through what might be considered reasonable means, such as chemical restraint, it could become impossible to respect that individual’s criteria. That is my first point. Second, how can an experienced legislator vote in favour of the principle of a bill that is unconstitutional and discriminates against people with mental illness?”
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North spoke about Quebec’s approach to advance requests. It was a long and rigorous process, but we came up with legislation. He says that process should be respected, but when it comes to administering medical assistance in dying, rather than introducing the notion of reasonable means to relieve intolerable suffering, as his bill does, why not use the wording in the Quebec legislation, which refers to determining whether an individual is experiencing suffering that cannot be relieved under conditions the patient considers tolerable? A person’s conditions could be completely intolerable and yet, through what might be considered reasonable means, such as chemical restraint, it could become impossible to respect that individual’s criteria. That is my first point. Second, how can an experienced legislator vote in favour of the principle of a bill that is unconstitutional and discriminates against people with mental illness?