SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Luc Thériault

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of Parliament
  • Bloc Québécois
  • Montcalm
  • Quebec
  • Voting Attendance: 65%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $126,025.95

  • Government Page
  • Feb/15/24 3:25:49 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's tone was measured. I think there is space to reflect. People can start from a premise, any premise he wants. However, when I listen to him, it is as though he is saying that all mental disorders are reversible and remediable, whereas all the experts, whether they are for or against MAID, are of the opinion that irremediability is a sticking point. However, they do not dispute that there are people who will suffer for decades. I have the same priorities as my colleague, namely doing good, showing compassion and honouring the importance of life and quality of life. The question I have for my colleague is what is his solution?
116 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/15/24 11:46:47 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-62 
Madam Speaker, I have said it repeatedly, the Bloc Québécois wants Bill C‑62 to include a section on advance requests for MAID. This is our main objection. We tried to introduce amendments in step with Quebec's request and that of the whole National Assembly. Where mental disorders are concerned, we start from the premise that psychiatry is unable to ease the suffering of every patient stricken by a severe mental disorder. Psychiatrists told us that 50% of their diagnoses are wrong. It is a wonderfully precise science. However, one thing is true. Although there is no exact diagnosis and a diagnosis can change, what is clear, straightforward, specific and a constant in a patient's journey over the decades is that they suffer. Psychiatrists cannot deny that their patients suffer, and that all they can offer them is a path to palliative care. In fact, Dr. Gagnon told us we had to develop palliative care for people afflicted with mental disorders because that is all we can offer them. Quebec made its decision in 2021. It did not have the opportunity to work off the expert report that the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying had in 2022.
208 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Feb/13/24 11:59:53 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-7 
Mr. Speaker, my colleague participated in all three sessions on the issue. When Quebec tabled its report and when we voted on Bill C-7 in 2021, I was very reluctant to consider opening up MAID to mental disorders. However, I worked my way through the experts' report and I invite my colleague to read it again. My colleague says there is nothing in the legislation. However, it does not have to be in the legislation. The regulations can set out the “how to”. Recommendations 10 and 16 are important safeguards. Let us assume I am not questioning anything in my colleague's speech; the fact remains that, today, as I speak, there are people who are suffering irreversibly and intolerably. What solution does my colleague have for those people?
132 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/12/24 1:47:38 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, that is precisely why I am saying that the government lacks courage. Faced with the political rhetoric machine, the government thinks it is better to backtrack, knowing full well that, by postponing this until 2027, it is quite possible that the same government will not be deciding what to do about mental disorders. What it could do is extend it for a year, and if we are still not ready in a year, nothing would stop us from taking another year. Putting this off until 2027 right now essentially leaves the ball in the Conservative demagogues' court.
100 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. In the supplementary report that I tabled, I note that, if we had had more time, we could have engaged with these people. By engaging with these people, we could have understood exactly what their concerns were. A certain number of associations did tell us that everything was ready for us to do this. The member knows that. For example, the Association of Medical Assistance in Dying Assessors and Providers came and told us after Bill C‑14 and Bill C‑7 were introduced that not all doctors were trained to be MAID providers. There was only a small number and they would be able to meet the demand. When it comes to mental disorders, we are talking about an even smaller number still. The people from this association felt that they were able to do this safely. There was also the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the Canadian Bar Association, the Association des médecins psychiatres du Québec, the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada, the Nova Scotia department of health, and so on. It comes down to the way people followed the debate and the way they debated within the governments because they sometimes have other concerns. I would have liked to hear them. The government did not call on us as soon as Parliament returned so that we could do a review and ask all of the questions we had. We could have even gone out into the community to see what was missing, but we were unable to. Here is what I think: We could do it right now, in the next year. We need to work together, get out there and explain it, see what is going on, and share the guidelines. Then, if we need another year, we can take it. Waiting until 2027 to do this is definitely not a progressive way of going about it.
325 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/7/24 5:30:17 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I was pleasantly surprised to hear the minister say right off the bat that there was no reason to question whether there is such a thing as an irremediable mental disorder, but the Conservative members do not seem very clear on that. I do not know if she noticed the member for St. Albert—Edmonton's reaction when she said it. I would certainly be worried if I were her, because every time the House has held a debate on medical assistance in dying since 2015, we have been unable to reach a consensus. The Conservatives are always opposed to it. On this bill, however, the Conservatives are in lockstep with the Liberals and in favour of indefinitely postponing access to MAID for people with mental disorders. Why is that? Is the minister not concerned about that? What evidence does she have to explain why, a year ago, the government said it was going to take a year to sort this out, but now it it is going to take three years? By then, the Conservative Party may have had the opportunity to take power. I guess she knows very well that this is not going to happen. I am not talking about the Conservatives being elected; I am talking finally legislating on the issue of mental disorders.
222 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border