SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 281

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 13, 2024 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24
Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)
  • Feb/13/24 12:19:14 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-7 
Madam Speaker, my colleague gave us a history lesson. He said that his party was not able to move forward because there was an election. I would point out to him that Quebec has had two elections in those six years. That did indeed delay the work, as he will agree. However, I do agree with him that Quebec's approach crosses party lines and is far more thorough. Some people complain about the delay associated with the Carter decision, but that is because this Parliament never took the opportunity to try to change the Criminal Code before there was a court order. It never had the courage to do that, and so we were then stuck with a court order. Mr. Lametti did not stand up solely because the bill did not go far enough. He stood up because it violated patients' constitutional rights. Bill C-7 corrected that. I would like my colleague to explain what he is advocating when it comes to advance requests for MAID. Does he think that the government, which had a year to introduce legislation, could have included that component in this bill?
190 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24
Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)
  • Feb/13/24 5:17:30 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite was wondering about the Carter decision. In my opinion, Carter clearly demonstrates that absolute prohibition would indeed be discriminatory and stigmatizing. That said, I would like to ask him the following question. My colleague obviously supports his government's bill, which defers application of the law by three years. Does this mean that he is going to lobby within his government so that, the day after tomorrow, once we have voted, the bill has gone through the Senate and the law has come into force, the committee will get back to work and eventually come up with a bill focusing on mental disorders, in particular, as well as on advance requests?
116 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24
Mr. Pat Kelly
Madam Speaker, it is possible that my colleague misunderstood me. What I said in my speech was that I voted for Bill C-14 because it was a reasonable response to what had to be addressed, which was the Carter decision. The reasonable foreseeability of death was a problem clause, and I thought so at the time. I thought it was awkward and perhaps not the best way to put it, so it was not a shock to me that it ended up being challenged on that basis. I think my colleague may have been overestimating my enthusiasm for Bill C-14, but I did support it, because something had to be done. However, this reckless expansion that came after the Senate amendments to Bill C-7 goes way beyond this. No court was calling upon Parliament or forcing Parliament to expand the eligibility of MAID to those whose sole underlying health condition is mental illness.
156 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border