SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 280 - Feb/12/24

Feb/12/24 12:42:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, when it comes to MAID, this government is not exactly a shining example of proactivity. After the Carter decision, it took a long time for the government to table a half-decent bill. Bill C‑14 was pretty worthless. It was a poor imitation of the Quebec legislation and was far from addressing the crux of the Carter decision. That being said, the issue of proactivity is still relevant. Regarding MAID for people with mental health conditions, a three-year delay was unnecessary; one year would have been enough. The government has been aware of that for a year, since it is basing its decision to kick it down the road on the consensus recommendations of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. Why has the government not done anything on advance requests for the past year? Why is it dragging its feet? Why is it not basing its decision to go ahead with this on the joint committee's key recommendation?

167 words

Context: House Hansard - 280 - Feb/12/24

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Feb/12/24 1:20:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it would have been good if my colleague could have sat with us on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. I think she is confusing two things. Just because a person requests MAID does not mean that they will be eligible to receive it, and all of the experts, whether they are in favour of MAID or not, have said that a suicidal state is reversible. I am not sure what she was talking about, but it is important not to engage in fearmongering. No one who has just been taken into care will be given that option because, first of all, it is not an option that is offered to people. People have to make a request. I would invite my colleague to read the panel's recommendations on that.

136 words

Context: House Hansard - 280 - Feb/12/24

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Feb/12/24 1:48:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware of all our work on the special joint committee. We sat together on that committee from the beginning. In our recommendation of our most recent report, we put in that recommendation “qualitative benchmarks”, not any kind of a reference to a time frame but more based on whether we had appropriate recommendations from departments and on consultation with provincial and territorial governments, and also the indigenous peoples of Canada. Similarly, in the letter that was received by the federal government from seven out of 10 provinces and all three territories, there were more qualitative benchmarks, in that the ministers were asking for an indefinite pause based on further collaboration and consultation. I know Bloc members have asked for a one-year delay, but how do they reconcile that with the fact that so many are calling for these qualitative benchmarks to be established rather than an arbitrary timeline?

158 words

Context: House Hansard - 280 - Feb/12/24

Mr. Luc Thériault

Feb/12/24 1:49:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have already answered my colleague's question. What I told him and I will say it again is that the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying sat for too little time. I would have liked to be able to question the people who wrote that letter to get them to support my position, which is that decisions cannot be forever. He is telling me that the NDP, which is a progressive party, believes that mental disorders are totally related to our ability to meet demand, when no matter how good the treatment a person receives is, they may still experience a mental disorder that will be irremediable. Instead of putting it off indefinitely, why not work on it over the next year? That is the Bloc Québécois's position. It is a matter of hearing from those people to see what their arguments are based on, knowing that this cannot be postponed indefinitely.

163 words