“I want the House to agree to let me share my speaking time with my colleague.”

“Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with my highly esteemed colleague from Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan.”

“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—”

“I want this bill changed. Banning people with incurable mental illness from asking for medical assistance in dying goes against their rights. They should not have to sue the government to get care. I also want the rules for advance requests to match Quebec's law, which is less restrictive.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, this is a serious and important issue, so we have to discuss it with care. That is why I would like my colleagues to quiet down in the House. I will pick up where I left off. We are certain that disqualifying people for MAID on the grounds of mental illness from the outset will be ruled unconstitutional. These individuals will be forced to personally take legal action against the government, like Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon had to do. It is appalling. People need to understand exactly what we mean by mental illness. I heard members saying earlier that we all have loved ones who have had mental health issues. That is true, but that is not the kind of mental health problems we are talking about here. It is actually clearly described in the legislation. We are talking about intolerable suffering and incurable illness. We are talking about suffering that cannot be relieved. It does exist. No one here is a psychiatrist. No one here can say, beyond all reasonable doubt, that cases like this do not exist. The number of cases like these are limited, because they are exceptions, so it makes no sense to shut the door completely. Access to MAID is not going to be rubber-stamped and provided straightaway to anyone who asks. An extensive process is involved. In Quebec, it is actually very carefully regulated. That takes care of the first part on expanded access to MAID. I will now move on to the second part, which concerns advance requests. On October 7, when the minister announced his intentions, we were delighted. I am guessing that the government members were happy to see Bloc Québécois members’ enthusiastic response to this announcement. To be honest, that does not happen very often, especially with a majority government. However, after analyzing the bill, we have some major concerns. I asked the minister about that earlier. I was pleased that he promised to speak with our critic, the hon. member for Montcalm, who knows the issue inside and out after spending countless hours studying it. He does more than make speeches; he talks to people on the ground. He has an incredible network, and he will be able to tell the minister what people on the ground are thinking. I hope that we will come up with something that makes sense. Our concern with the current wording is that the federal law would be more restrictive than Quebec’s law. For the time being, the Criminal Code takes precedence over Quebec’s laws. We are working on that. If the Criminal Code were to become more restrictive, Quebec’s laws would have to be amended accordingly. It is because of this type of thing that the Quebec nation hopes to one day be able to manage its own affairs in its own parliament. There is the issue of language, but that is not all. We are increasingly convinced by the examples we see on a daily basis that this would be the right thing to do. Our chief concern is that Quebec’s criterion is whether the suffering is considered to be tolerable. However, the federal law says that the criterion is whether relief can be provided through reasonable means. I will stop here and continue after oral question period.”