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 - 281 - Feb/13/24

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 (Montcalm, BQ)

Feb/13/24 10:24:58 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer to the question posed by my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord is inadequate. Yes, in 2021, Quebec ruled on the issue before the report of the expert panel on mental illness was published. However, the minister had a year to implement the most widely held recommendation of the special joint committee on medical assistance in dying concerning advance requests. Even a Conservative member from Quebec voted for it. Why did he not introduce a bill aimed at enacting this provision, knowing full well, unless he is unaware, that Quebec was going to legislate accordingly? As for the report, we are talking about a year and he wants three years, but that is another story. He cannot possibly tell us that he did not have the time to implement the special joint committee's main recommendation. Now it is a double standard. He accepted the special joint committee's recommendation about mental illness and made it into a bill, yet he is doing nothing about advance requests, which Canadians from coast to coast agree on. Will the minister commit, if he does not support my amendment, to tabling a bill on advance requests as soon as possible?

204 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

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. 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

SoVote

Member of Parliament

Luc Thériault