SoVote

Luc Thériault

Member of Parliament
Member of Parliament
Bloc Québécois

Montcalm
Quebec
Voting Attendance: 65%
Expenses Last Quarter: $126,025.95

Government Page

Context: House Hansard - 283 - Feb/15/24

Feb/15/24 10:46:51 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, we just witnessed a great NDP-Conservative coalition. The member is reiterating the Conservatives' argument to the effect that the ruling in Gladu and Truchon was not challenged before the Supreme Court. However, the reason why it was not challenged before the Supreme Court is that people were suffering and Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon deserved to have relief. This was based on the Carter decision. However, the NDP voted against Bill C-14, which did not go far enough. I do not know why the member is being so inconsistent today. I would like to know whether the member is aware that, basically, his party is trying hard not to say that it lacks courage, that it is backing down when it comes to mental illness and that it is throwing the ball back into the court of the Conservatives who, as they announced, are going to do away with all of this.

159 words

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

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

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

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

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 - 277 - Feb/7/24

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Feb/7/24 6:58:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-7 Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague, who always speaks very calmly and moderately. It is a pleasure to serve with him. The NDP voted against Bill C‑14, which did not address the Carter decision's requirements at all. Bill C‑7 met the Carter decision's requirements with additional changes that required hard work, to clarify the issue. Is the NDP saying no to the idea of one day moving forward on mental disorders, or would it rather put the subject off indefinitely? We could start working on this tomorrow morning, and I am convinced that within a year, we could come up with something very promising.

114 words

SoVote

Member of Parliament

Luc Thériault