Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

Compton—Stanstead Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak on a subject of great importance in my constituency: cellular connectivity. This is an issue that worries me, just as it worries my colleague, the member for, who is also a very strong advocate for the vitality of rural areas. In my riding, I lose signal when I am in Upper Madawaska. Then, if I move around a bit, the signal comes [more]

Mr. Speaker, I request that it be carried.

Mr. Speaker, to build Canada strong, we need strong rural communities, and that requires modern, sustainable infrastructure tailored to the needs of local residents. Earlier this year, we launched the build communities strong fund, which enables us to invest in essential community infrastructure across the country, including in Madawaska—Restigouche. Recently, I had the distinct pleasure of [more]

Mr. Speaker, I believe our budget reflects a very responsible fiscal approach. In fact, the debt-to-GDP ratio is falling, and we achieved our fiscal targets a full year ahead of schedule. Moreover, in a period of trade uncertainty, it is important to invest and stimulate the Canadian economy, support our small and medium-sized enterprises and to make essential investments, such as in the fight [more]

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague. We serve together on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. The budget includes $400 million for the Francophonie summit. We are continuing to implement our official languages action plan, which is backed by a $4.1-billion investment. This is the largest investment in official languages in history. Culture is receiving $4 billion, which will have [more]

Madam Speaker, better data collection and interoperability, and therefore better dialogue between systems, will ultimately benefit the health of Canadians, including Quebeckers. S-5 As we know, these things do not happen in a vacuum. Some Quebeckers might have consultations in Ontario or New Brunswick, just as people from other provinces might have consultations in Quebec. I welcome the idea of [more]

Mr. Speaker, I really want to make sure I understand my colleague correctly. MAID gives people who are living with an incurable illness and facing significant suffering a choice in their end-of-life care. I emphasize the word “choice” because no one is under any obligation to request MAID. Those who choose to do so make a free and informed decision. They can withdraw their consent at any time, [more]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave a great presentation on the importance of respecting the wishes of others. It should be perfectly clear that this is a choice, not an obligation. Every individual decides whether medical assistance in dying is right for them or not. We have heard all sorts of things tonight. I would like my colleague to elaborate on what we have heard, especially the fact that MAID [more]

Mr. Speaker, tonight, we have gathered to discuss a particularly sensitive issue that raises legal, ethical and social questions affecting patients suffering from an incurable disease, their families and health care professionals. I believe this is a topic we all take very seriously. Let us take a step back. The law on medical assistance in dying came into effect in Canada in 2016. That marked a [more]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that people suffering from diseases such as Alzheimer's must be able to make free and informed decisions about their end-of-life care. People suffering from illnesses such as cancer or neurodegenerative disorders are able to make that decision immediately before MAID is provided. For people with Alzheimer's, that choice is taken away from them by the disease. An [more]

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that this decision was not taken lightly. Various experts were heard. Consultations were held. Work was done in committee. Of course, my colleague is well aware of that. The conclusion was that, in the case of individuals living with mental illness, there remained concerns about whether these situations could be assessed in a safe and consistent manner in the [more]

Mr. Speaker, in 2016, the adoption of Canada's MAID legislation marked a significant change in Canadian society. It gave people living with an incurable illness and experiencing intolerable suffering an additional option in their end-of-life care: medical assistance in dying. My colleague cited a number of statistics and shared several anecdotes in his speech, but I would like a clear answer. Is [more]

Mr. Speaker, in a debate as sensitive as the one surrounding medical assistance in dying, I urge members to be thorough, to raise the standard of the debate and to ensure that we do not resort to oversimplifications that could hinder the public's understanding of the discussions taking place this evening. At one point in my colleague's speech, he seemed to draw a parallel between suicide and [more]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague described medical assistance in dying as radical. He used the term “government-assisted dying” rather than the correct term, “medical assistance in dying”. He described Canada as a pariah when it comes to our current policy. I think that sort of language is detrimental to the quality of the debate we are having this evening and fails to reflect the [more]

Mr. Speaker, choosing our words carefully in a debate like this is a matter of respect. There were moving accounts from people who courageously testified about their health conditions and how they envisioned their end-of-life care. I think the least we can do is show some respect for these people and be mindful of the words we use in the debate. The idea behind this is not to create an [more]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, tonight's debate deals with fundamental issues of dignity and autonomy regarding the options available to people suffering from incurable illnesses. We have heard various accounts from people suffering from diseases such as Alzheimer's, a condition that robs them of the choice to die with dignity. I would like to ask my colleague why it is important to listen [more]

Mr. Speaker, in such a sensitive debate, I would like to ask my colleague why it is important to ensure that we use precise language. In Canada, the term used is medical assistance in dying. We have precise terms that we have been using for nearly a decade now. Why is it important to ensure we use the correct language when debating such a sensitive issue? In what way does this also constitute a [more]

C-41 Mr. Speaker, through Bill, we are establishing a framework that would allow people living with conditions such as Alzheimer's to make a free and informed decision about their end-of-life care while they are still capable of doing so. This decision was not taken lightly. We heard deeply moving testimony from many individuals living with these conditions, and they expressed a desire to be able [more]