SoVote

Feb/7/24 5:36:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will remind the member that we cannot speculate on treatment. Treatment is something that a patient decides with their health care provider. There is a lengthy process of assessments that are done for those who struggle with mental illness. That being said, the criteria of eligibility are crystal clear. It has to be prolonged. It has to be determined irremediable, not only by the patient but also by a group of expert assessors. There needs to be a full assessment of what treatments have been engaged. I know there has been some debate in the House in the past asking about future treatments and all of that. We are looking at an individual and their prolonged suffering. I would ask the member to really contemplate it. Does an individual's own lived experience with prolonged mental illness, and the suffering that goes with it, not weigh in, beyond that of the experts who have not walked in their shoes?

162 words

Context: House Hansard - 277 - Feb/7/24

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Feb/7/24 6:02:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is always very eloquent when it comes to defending the “no” camp and the pro-life camp. Does his position represent the position of the Conservative party? Is that the official position of the Conservative Party? I just want us to be able to understand what is at stake in this debate today. Essentially, to him, irremediability is something that can never be proven. That means that, under a Conservative government, people who are suffering intolerably, who are dealing with intolerable suffering because they are victims of a mental disorder, could never be relieved of their suffering. What I am also hearing is that he claims that he can solve the problem of suffering and irremediable mental disorders by injecting a lot of money into the health care system to make access to health care something that can help these people put all their suffering behind them. Is that what he is telling us?

160 words

Context: House Hansard - 277 - Feb/7/24

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ)

Feb/7/24 6:34:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, from what I understand there are inconsistencies between the processes in the different provinces. Quebec has done its part. What I am hearing this evening is often what individuals may have experienced. We are talking about human suffering. I know what I am talking about because I have experienced it. Everything my colleague is talking about, everything he got out of all these experts, I experienced it. Beyond a potential fear of getting to the bottom of things, of figuring out what else is needed to make an informed choice, there is urgency. I would like my colleague to tell me what our dear colleagues here might be lacking to make an informed decision on the fate of human life.

122 words

Context: House Hansard - 277 - Feb/7/24

Mr. Luc Thériault

Feb/7/24 6:35:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, briefly put, I would say they lack courage. In this place, courage and compassion are lacking, and action is based far too much on ideology. As I said earlier, only the individual can compare their life in one condition to their life in another condition, and this does not mean comparing two different lives. In that sense, we cannot turn a deaf ear to suffering. We have to listen and we have to act to make sure that these people receive care, of course. That is our goal. However, no matter how difficult it may be to determine whether a condition is irremediable, it would be intellectually dishonest to claim today that psychiatric treatment can relieve the suffering of everyone with severe mental disorders. For those whose suffering cannot be relieved and who request MAID in a considered and coherent manner, with all the safeguards I mentioned earlier in place, we have a duty to listen to what they think and to legislate accordingly.

166 words