Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of dignity and respect.

The role of the government is not to claim to know better than an individual what is good for that individual concerning something as personal as their own death. We are talking about people enduring intolerable suffering, sometimes for decades. I am not talking about a headache. Who are we to know what is good for them? If we could agree on that at least, we could probably make a lot of progress. Maybe partisanship would be set aside for once.

Dying is part of life. The only thing a human being knows when they are born is that they are going to die. Am I telling my colleagues anything new? The answer is no.

Having the right to choose for oneself, based on one's values and level of suffering, is that possible in a free country, or in any case a very free Quebec? It is essential. In Quebec, we have a consensus. Quebec society is ready. Quebeckers have been looking at this for decades.

Just because other provinces want to intervene on this issue does not mean we have to infringe on the rights of people who are ceaselessly crying out to us for help.

My father said, “I can't live in this coffin any longer”. He had ALS. I think MPs are familiar with this disease, as one of the members suffered from it a few years ago. “My body can't take it anymore. I want to live, but I can't stand the suffering anymore.” That is the crux of the issue. There are still certain pieces missing, particularly when it comes to expertise. There are still pieces missing when it comes to ensuring there is no bias when the choice is made.

In 2015, when my father requested MAID, he was not eligible. ALS is a death sentence, but no one knows when the disease will progress to the terminal stage. His death was a long, drawn-out process.

My father always said that human beings must be respected throughout their journey. How does it feel to see someone suffer? We want to help and support them, but when we know there is no way out, no treatment, no hope, what do we do? Some will say that these people must continue to suffer and simply wait for death to come. My father used to say that he was living in his coffin. My father's illness changed my life because I witnessed it for 20 years.

I agree that we need to address the process. What is left to do? We need a few more meetings. That is what we have been hearing for the past few days. I invite members of the House to reach out to someone who has experienced this process first-hand with a loved one. That is what I went through with my father. Above all, we must avoid talking drivel. I often hear remarks that I will not repeat. Who are they to say such unbelievable things?

I will conclude my speech with the following. When people are suffering unbearably, when science does not allow them to have any hope, they must have a choice. It is a matter of solidarity, humanity, altruism and compassion. That is why, this evening, in light of everything I have just said, I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2, as no clause addresses the call for the Government of Canada, adopted unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly, to amend the Criminal Code to align with the Quebec legislation on end-of-life care by allowing advance consent requests.”.

Transcript

Government Orders

Discussions (0)