Luc Thériault

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is important. Earlier, the minister quoted a passage stating that the bill will not a apply to provinces that have their own system. Could she table that wording? I cannot find it in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech clearly reflected the concerns of an excellent physician from Yukon. We had the opportunity to serve together on the Standing Committee on Health. The bill gives the minister the discretion to impose her intentions by order in council. When the pan-Canadian interoperability road map was announced, Quebec indicated that it would not be moving in that direction, [more]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about connecting sensitive data from coast to coast to coast. My colleague concluded his remarks by saying that if the systems were disconnected, it would pose a threat to patients' health. How did his government ensure the necessary cybersecurity measures were in place to prevent an attack on an interconnected system, a cyber-attack like the one we saw in July, in [more]

Madam Speaker, looking over the bill, we can see that it will be implemented by order in council.. Looking at the provision governing such orders, we find the following in clause 7: The Governor in Council may, by order, make any provision of this Act or the regulations applicable in any province or territory if the Governor in Council is satisfied, Already, we see that discretionary power [more]

Madam Speaker, my colleague was right to raise the whole issue of chronic underfunding in health care, the lack of federal funding, and the federal government's fundamental inability to shoulder its fair share. Going back to the bill, under clause 7, which my colleague mentioned, the bill would apply, by order, to a province such as Quebec if the minister determines that Quebec's existing [more]

Madam Speaker, setting aside the fact that, as we mentioned earlier, as soon as the pan-Canadian interoperability roadmap was announced, Quebec made it clear that it did not want any part of it, though it was open to data sharing, there is one issue that piques my curiosity from a purely technological standpoint. This bill is about connecting all health care data from coast to coast to coast. [more]

Madam Speaker, when the pan-Canadian interoperability roadmap was announced, it was noted that: Quebec has not signed any agreement with the federal government and is not bound by the conditions related to the document entitled “Working together to improve health care for Canadians”. Quebec remains fully committed to exercise its own responsibilities within its exclusive jurisdiction over health [more]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleague that advance requests were the flagship recommendation of the first joint special committee. No one opposed them except, of course, my colleague and the Conservatives. I would like to point out to him that the very principle of an advance request is to be able to work with a health care team to establish the threshold of what is tolerable, [more]

Madam Speaker, I am going to quote the Carter decision, and I would like my colleague to tell me whether she agrees with this statement. requires This said, we do not agree that the existential formulation of the right to lifean absolute prohibition on assistance in dying, or that individuals cannot “waive” their right to life. This would create a “duty to live”, rather than a “right to life”, [more]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North spoke about Quebec's approach to advance requests. It was a long and rigorous process, but we came up with legislation. He says that process should be respected, but when it comes to administering medical assistance in dying, rather than introducing the notion of reasonable means to relieve intolerable suffering, as his bill does, why not use the [more]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. The bill stipulates that the matter of how to administer advance requests falls under provincial legislation. Quebec has its own law. I listened to the example she gave. What makes her think that the Quebec law would have done to her aunt what she claims?

Mr. Speaker, in this debate, which can get quite emotional, I am going to try to live up to my riding's name, and I will remain calm. The bill before us today is really two bills in one. The government proposed that the vote at second reading be split. In fact, I expected the Conservatives to support that proposal, but that does not appear to be the case. Later, at third reading, we can discuss [more]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about suicidal crises. A suicidal crisis is reversible and does not make someone eligible for MAID. She talked about the gaps in the health care system, but that has nothing to do with eligibility for MAID. If she has read the expert panel's report, she must know that for someone to be assessed—without necessarily getting a positive decision at the end of the [more]

C-14 Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the history of MAID in Canada. I hope my colleague knows that Billdid not respond to the Carter decision, because Ms. Carter and Ms. Taylor were not terminally ill, and Bill C‑14 enshrined a flawed Quebec law. Essentially, that legislation should have addressed the cases of Mr. Truchon and Ms. Gladu. However, the onus once again fell on Ms. Gladu and [more]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right to point out that Svend Robinson and Sue Rodriguez advanced the discussion on MAID in 1993 in British Columbia. I would like to say something about the constitutional nature of equitable access to advance requests throughout the country whether or not a parliament passes legislation. I would say that this could be a reasonable infringement, according to the [more]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I think that my colleague is comparing apples and oranges. I also think that he misunderstands the very principle of an advance request. An advance request is made while a person is still of sound mind, after being diagnosed with a degenerative illness that progresses in stages. At the formal meeting where the patient's criteria for what is tolerable are [more]

Mr. Speaker, the member believes, as I do, that the role of the state is to ensure that the conditions are in place for a person to make a free and informed choice, not to impose what it thinks is best on a person who is suffering. However, when it comes to mental illness, on what grounds should the state restrict or undermine the right to self-determination of a person with a mental disorder who [more]

Mr. Speaker, the main reason is that the bill introduces the concept of “reasonable means” of alleviating suffering when a person no longer has capacity. It is version 2.0 of the phrase “reasonably foreseeable natural death”. In practice, this will create confusion in clinical settings. That is what the practitioners I have consulted are telling me. That is why I believe that, if the government [more]