Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I have already answered my colleague concerning palliative care. I repeat that, 40 years ago, it was said to be the only way to manage end-of-life care. However, in 40 years, palliative care has not become more accessible. Indeed, there is an accessibility problem.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing his speaking time with me. It is small consolation, since the members of my political party were excluded from the committee formed to produce a bill. Today, I can only say that we are witness to a sad chapter in the history of “parliamentary” democracy in Ottawa and in the House of Commons.

Criminal Code  Carter.

Criminal Code  Madam Speaker, my Liberal colleagues are lavish in their praise of the minister. They think that the bill is perfect and will easily pass the test of the charter and the courts. My question is simple. How does Bill C-14 guarantee a reasonable expectation of the right to life; liberty, by which I mean freedom of conscience in the sense of respecting autonomy; and security of the person, in the case of a person suffering from a grievous and irremediable illness, if the person has to go on a hunger strike to be eligible for medical assistance in dying and meet the reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion?

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, the minister never answered my question. She invited us to debate the issue, but when there is a debate, we would expect a majority government to accept some amendments. The minister referred to the Quebec legislation. Surely she knows that, as it is currently written, the Quebec law excludes all requests for assisted suicide and forces ineligible people to resort to hunger strikes.

Physician-Assisted Dying  Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois commends the government for withdrawing Motion No. 6. With regard to the bill on medical assistance in dying, the leader just said that he is prepared to hear from members. Is he prepared to listen to them? The reasonably foreseeable natural death provision is not consistent with the Carter decision.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve the right to talk more about this later. I want to participate in the debate. Briefly, it would be good if we could debate this today. I wanted to say that the motion is excessive and that it is the ultimate gag order. The motion blatantly disregards parliamentary democracy.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems to be mixing things up and is creating confusion in the debate. I wonder if he could clearly and succinctly tell us the difference between a compassionate crime, assisted suicide, euthanasia, and suicide.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, over 40 years ago, palliative care was identified as the only way for people to die with dignity. My colleague opposite is assuming that if someone requests assistance in dying during palliative care, it means that palliative care has failed. Why should comprehensive palliative care that includes assistance in dying from specialized staff be considered a failure when an individual decides he or she is ready to go peacefully?

Criminal Code  Madam Speaker, a bad law leads to a plethora of court challenges. That is what is going to happen with this bill if this vague concept is not clarified. The worst thing about this sensitive issue is that patients will have to set the precedent. Vulnerable patients with grievous and irremediable conditions are going to have to shoulder the burden of going before the Supreme Court to make their voices heard.

Criminal Code  Madam Speaker, this bill does not compromise freedom of conscience. However, even if the House were to pass a bill like the one we want, a bill that complies with Carter, health care workers who care for people who are terminally ill do not just materialize out of thin air. Palliative care is now a reality in end-of-life care.

Criminal Code  Madam Speaker, when witnesses appeared before the committee, I heard people who were confusing the Quebec law with what the Supreme court asked us to do. My Conservative colleagues, with their notion of imminent death, are creating this confusion. I mentioned this earlier. That is also the case for the Canadian Medical Association.

Criminal Code  Madam Speaker, first of all, as I have done in the past, I would like to thank everyone taking part in this debate, as they are clearly demonstrating great compassion for persons with disabilities, diseases, or grievous and irremediable medical conditions. However, as I have already said, just because we are compassionate does not mean that we are helpful.

Criminal Code  moved: Motion No. 6 That Bill C-14, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting lines 17 to 21 on page 6.

Air Canada Public Participation Act  Mr. Speaker, the government wants to use time allocation to get a warped and shameful bill passed. I listened to the sole Quebec member of the Liberal Party caucus who rose this morning to put yet another twisted case forward. He must have some basic knowledge of procedure to know that the proposed amendments were meant to scrap the bill and that triggering yesterday's vote did what the amendments would have done.