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 - 286 - Feb/27/24

Feb/27/24 11:07:58 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-15

Mr. Speaker, I would call for a bit more decorum in the House. First, I think it is important to say that the Bloc Québécois will be supporting this motion as a matter of principle. The leader of the Bloc Québécois was the first to call for an independent inquiry, the implementation of a reimbursement procedure and oversight of the agency. The leader of the official opposition is merely blowing smoke by saying that his party reacted when it saw the $12 million. I am sorry, but the truth is that no one on this side of the aisle was aware of this before the Auditor General’s report. The proof is that the only time ArriveCAN found its way into an appropriation bill is in a note to the supplementary estimates (C) for 2021-22, on which we voted at the end of the year, in March 2022, in the form of Bill C-15. If the Conservatives noticed this when we studied the supplementary estimates (C) for 2021-22, why did they not oppose any of the appropriations? If they had, we should have voted on this appropriation in particular. Instead, all the parties voted in favour. The Conservatives are blowing smoke, but this kind of thing should never happen again. What I want to know from my colleague is whether her government will finally call an independent inquiry so that we can see all of the ramifications in connection with these two cronies.

255 words

Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Feb/13/24 10:06:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we need to move quickly to save people. I am all in favour of implementing social programs to save people, but does the member have a different point of view from the Conservatives right now? If we invest in social programs, will people all of a sudden get relief after 30 years of suffering and inadequate treatment? The accessibility of frontline services is another debate. How can we shut down debate today by claiming that, if ever we move forward with expanding MAID eligibility to people with mental disorders, then that would be an affront to people's integrity, when the fact is that MAID is voluntary? What is more, there are people who are going to examine the request and, if a person is suicidal or receiving care for the first time, then they will not have access to medical assistance in dying. I am trying hard to make people understand that just because a person makes a request does not mean that they will be eligible. When the member says things like that, how does she think that her point of view differs from what we have been hearing from the Conservatives today?

198 words

Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Feb/13/24 2:39:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Quebec would not have to ask for an exemption if Ottawa had implemented the majority recommendations on advance requests issued a year ago by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. Quebec is ready today, and patients should not have to suffer because of the government's inaction. If it does not want to condemn people to suffer needlessly, the federal government has two choices. It must either offer this exemption to the Criminal Code immediately or introduce a bill on advance requests. Will the minister make the humane, compassionate choice?

95 words

Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Feb/13/24 11:41:30 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that, one day, it will be possible to alleviate the suffering of people struggling with an irremediable mental disorder. I would also like to know whether he agrees that it would have been wiser for the government to implement the joint committee's leading recommendation regarding advance requests and to take advantage of the introduction of this bill to add that component.

73 words

Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24

Mr. Luc Thériault

Feb/13/24 10:35:07 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-62 Bill C-14

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer one aspect of my question. Why the double standard? The minister had a full year to implement the recommendation of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying concerning advance requests. An Ipsos poll of 3,500 people showed 85% support across Canada. If the minister does not know that, he is not staying on top of his file. As far as postponement is concerned, the minister has implemented the recommendation to the letter. Three years is too long. He knows that. However, he could have added another dimension to Bill C‑62. He had a year to do it. Will he introduce legislation on advance requests, yes or no? Bill C‑14 is bad legislation. The minister says that he worked carefully. People have been forced to go on hunger strikes to meet the reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion. Is that what he means by protecting vulnerable people?

159 words

SoVote

Member of Parliament

Luc Thériault