“We should not expand medically assisted dying to people with mental illness right now. Experts still have safety concerns about how to assess them. This bill matches Quebec's laws on advance requests and mental health, and it protects medical workers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that this decision was not taken lightly. Various experts were heard. Consultations were held. Work was done in committee. Of course, my colleague is well aware of that. The conclusion was that, in the case of individuals living with mental illness, there remained concerns about whether these situations could be assessed in a safe and consistent manner in the context of medical assistance in dying. Therefore, the most responsible course of action is not to proceed with the expansion at this time. I want to mention that Bill C‑41 is consistent with Quebec legislation. In Quebec, advance requests are already in use. With the bill, Quebec medical staff who administer MAID are protected. In terms of the mental health issue, Bill C‑41 is consistent with Quebec’s current legislation.”

“I support this bill. People with diseases like Alzheimer's should be able to ask for medical assistance in dying in advance, while they can still make their own choices. The bill has strong safeguards. Two doctors must check that all conditions are met, and the procedure must stop if the person resists through sounds or gestures.”

“Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that people suffering from diseases such as Alzheimer’s must be able to make free and informed decisions about their end-of-life care. People suffering from illnesses such as cancer or neurodegenerative disorders are able to make that decision immediately before MAID is provided. For people with Alzheimer’s, that choice is taken away from them by the disease. An advance request would allow a person diagnosed at an early stage to specify the conditions under which they would wish to receive MAID once they reach a later stage of the disease and are no longer capable of making that decision on their own. Two independent health care professionals would assess whether the conditions set out in this request are met. If at the time that MAID is to be provided, the person appears, through sounds or gestures, to be resisting or refusing the procedure, it would be stopped. Rigorous safeguards remain in place while also allowing people with illnesses such as Alzheimer’s to make a free and informed choice.”

“I want my colleague to speak about personal choice and how medical assistance in dying must always be an option, never an obligation.”

“Mr. Speaker, this evening, we are discussing an issue that is really very emotional and far-reaching. In a debate such as this, I believe the words we choose matter. Following his very thoughtful speech, I would ask my colleague to speak to the importance of personal autonomy, individual choice and the fact that medical assistance in dying must always remain an option, never an obligation.”

“We must choose our words carefully out of respect for the people who shared their stories with us. This bill is not about forcing anyone to end their life. It is about giving people another choice.”

“Mr. Speaker, choosing our words carefully in a debate like this is a matter of respect. There were moving accounts from people who courageously testified about their health conditions and how they envisioned their end-of-life care. I think the least we can do is show some respect for these people and be mindful of the words we use in the debate. The idea behind this is not to create an obligation, but to give people another choice.”

“No member should push their personal beliefs on people who want to end their suffering. I want the member to explain the difference between needlessly prolonging someone's pain and dying with dignity.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague may have lost it. Since when do members impose their personal beliefs on someone who wants to end their suffering? I am shocked. Can my colleague explain to the House the difference between therapeutic obstinacy and dying with dignity?”

“We should use exact words in this debate. In Canada, the correct term is medical assistance in dying. I want the member to explain why he used other words, and why he thinks exact language is important for showing respect to the people involved.”

“Mr. Speaker, in such a sensitive debate, I would like to ask my colleague why it is important to ensure that we use precise language. In Canada, the term used is medical assistance in dying. We have precise terms that we have been using for nearly a decade now. Why is it important to ensure we use the correct language when debating such a sensitive issue? In what way does this also constitute a matter of respect for the people concerned?”

“Our 2016 law gave suffering people with incurable illnesses the option to choose medical assistance in dying. I want the member to give a clear answer: does he support or oppose letting people make their own free and informed choice about this?”

“Mr. Speaker, in 2016, the adoption of Canada’s MAID legislation marked a significant change in Canadian society. It gave people living with an incurable illness and experiencing intolerable suffering an additional option in their end-of-life care: medical assistance in dying. My colleague cited a number of statistics and shared several anecdotes in his speech, but I would like a clear answer. Is he for or against allowing individuals to make a free and informed choice about MAID based on their own circumstances?”

“You have a right to your personal beliefs. But you should not put your beliefs above other people's rights to make their own choices. Can you explain the difference between forcing someone to stay alive with treatments and letting them die with dignity?”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not challenging my colleague’s right to his personal convictions. I am challenging his possible intention to put his rights above the rights and autonomy of others. Can my colleague explain to the House the difference between therapeutic obstinacy and the right to die with dignity?”

“Medical assistance in dying is a choice, not an obligation. Strict rules apply, and requesting it does not mean a person automatically gets it. I want my colleague to speak more about these safeguards.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave a great presentation on the importance of respecting the wishes of others. It should be perfectly clear that this is a choice, not an obligation. Every individual decides whether medical assistance in dying is right for them or not. We have heard all sorts of things tonight. I would like my colleague to elaborate on what we have heard, especially the fact that MAID is still a choice and that strict guidelines are in place. It is not automatic. A person who requests MAID does not automatically get it. I would like my colleague to tell us more about that, in light of what we have heard during this evening’s debate.”

“I want us to be careful and accurate in this debate. Medical assistance in dying is for people with incurable illnesses who are suffering, and it is not the same as suicide. We should not confuse the public with oversimplified arguments, personal stories, or false comparisons.”

“Mr. Speaker, in a debate as sensitive as the one surrounding medical assistance in dying, I urge members to be thorough, to raise the standard of the debate and to ensure that we do not resort to oversimplifications that could hinder the public’s understanding of the discussions taking place this evening. At one point in my colleague’s speech, he seemed to draw a parallel between suicide and medical assistance in dying, even though we know these are two fundamentally different things. Medical assistance in dying is an option available to people living with incurable illnesses that cause significant suffering. There was also a point where my colleague spoke of commercial aspects related to medical assistance in dying. I must say I did not really understand that part. I believe we must be rigorous and ensure that we do not recount anecdotes or make false equivalencies that could hinder understanding of the debate.”

“The previous speaker used extreme words about medically assisted dying that harm this debate. A recent poll showed that 85 percent of Canadians support it. People should have a choice about their end-of-life care. I want the member to answer the Canadians who are asking us to respect their wishes.”

“Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague described medical assistance in dying as radical. He used the term “government-assisted dying” rather than the correct term, “medical assistance in dying”. He described Canada as a pariah when it comes to our current policy. I think that sort of language is detrimental to the quality of the debate we are having this evening and fails to reflect the seriousness of the issues being discussed. I would like to remind him that a recent Environics Research survey found that 85% of Canadians support medical assistance in dying, so there is a broad consensus. It is not a matter of course. It is about giving people a choice regarding their end-of-life care. Throughout these debates, we have heard moving testimony from people who came forward to express their desire for us to respect their will. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say to these people who are asking us to respect their desire to have access to MAID.”

“Medically assisted dying gives people who have incurable illnesses and great suffering a choice. Nobody has to choose it. They can change their mind at any time, and two independent medical professionals must check them first. I want to know if the member is against letting these people make that choice for themselves.”

“Mr. Speaker, I really want to make sure I understand my colleague correctly. MAID gives people who are living with an incurable illness and facing significant suffering a choice in their end-of-life care. I emphasize the word “choice” because no one is under any obligation to request MAID. Those who choose to do so make a free and informed decision. They can withdraw their consent at any time, and there is a process, an assessment carried out by two independent medical practitioners. I would really like to understand whether my colleague is opposed to allowing people who are living with an incurable illness and significant suffering to make this free and informed choice for themselves.”