SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of Parliament

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
Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 159 - Feb/13/23
Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)
  • Feb/13/23 4:24:04 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-39 
Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague who is a member of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. I would just like to provide her with a bit of context. Bill C‑7, which is the fruit of a compromise with the Senate, was meant to respond to a requirement in a court ruling to allow Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon to have access to medical assistance in dying. No one in Quebec considered the passage of Bill C‑7, which allowed Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon to have access to medical assistance in dying, to be reckless. There was a consensus on it. It needed to be passed. We passed it while creating a special panel of experts that was meant to table a report within two years to inform a joint committee, which was tasked with reviewing the report and making recommendations that would come later. We have to be careful when we talk about rushing things. Let us take our foot off the gas. By March 2024, we will have been thinking about this for three years. What is more, when my colleague says that the public is not on board, I would like her to show me some polls to support that claim. In any event, the current problem is that her party wanted the committee to table a report in June because the Conservatives were against giving the joint committee any extensions on its deadlines so that it could do a good job. Each time, we fought for an acceptable deadline to do decent work. I think they are being a bit hypocritical.
272 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border