SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 159 - Feb/13/23

Feb/13/23 3:26:35 p.m.
Watch

Order, please. We seem to have a small technical glitch in the lobbies. We are going to suspend for about two minutes while they run to the lobbies and check it out to make sure everything is okay there. They should be back shortly. Members can leave their seats, but please come back right away.

55 words

The Speaker

Feb/13/23 3:26:35 p.m.
Watch

Order. We have checked and everything seems to be in order. To make sure everyone is back in the House, we will ring the bells for a few minutes and then announce the result. And the bells having rung:

39 words

The Speaker

Feb/13/23 3:29:02 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion lost.

5 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Feb/13/23 3:30:01 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill S-8.

35 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

Feb/13/23 3:30:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the previous vote to this vote, with Liberals members voting yea.

27 words

All Topics

Mr. Chris Warkentin

Feb/13/23 3:30:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

Mr. Speaker, we agree to proceed in this fashion, with Conservatives voting in favour.

14 words

All Topics

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

Feb/13/23 3:30:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the previous vote, and we will vote in favour of the motion.

25 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Feb/13/23 3:30:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agree to apply and will be voting in favour.

13 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May

Feb/13/23 3:30:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the previous vote and will vote yes.

16 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Feb/13/23 3:31:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

20 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Feb/13/23 3:32:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, an order in council for the interim appointment of Mr. Eric Janse as Clerk of the House of Commons.

37 words

Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)

Feb/13/23 3:33:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, entitled “Transporting Goods in Rail Containers: Some Trade Implications for Canada”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

53 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Feb/13/23 3:34:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners have requested that Bill C-21, as it is an affront to the private property rights of Canadians, not go forward and that it be recalled.

30 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Feb/13/23 3:34:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present e-petition 4190, which was actively promoted by singer Jann Arden and signed by more than 36,000 people across Canada, making it the third-highest petition of this Parliament. The petition is to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The petitioners recognize that banning the export of live horses for slaughter is in the Minister of Minister of Agriculture's mandate letter from the Prime Minister and in the Liberals' 2021 election campaign commitment. They recognize that horses are flown from Canada to Japan in cramped wooden crates in journeys that can commonly take more than 24 hours. They recognize that horses panic easily, have strong flight or fight instincts and have extremely sensitive hearing. They also recognize that since 2010, the NDP has introduced three private members' bills to ban the export of live horses for slaughter. Therefore, the petitioners call on the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to halt the export of live horses for slaughter.

168 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Feb/13/23 3:35:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are looking at the current situation of Canada's water laws and the threat to Canada's waterways. It is an astonishing reality that no bureau, department or sub-department in the Government of Canada has the word “water” in its title. The petitioners call for the Government of Canada to update Canada's water laws to ensure that no industry or corporation takes precedence over the health of Canada's waterways and watersheds, and to ensure that Canada's water laws are updated under the guidance of professionals and specialists in the field of water conservation.

103 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Feb/13/23 3:36:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

11 words

Stand
Ask

The Speaker

Feb/13/23 3:36:48 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

The Speaker

Feb/13/23 3:37:09 p.m.
Watch

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 8 by the House Leader of the official opposition concerning technical difficulties affecting interpretation services. In his intervention, the House Leader alleged that a breach of his privileges and those of his colleagues occurred because simultaneous interpretation services were not available during a caucus meeting held earlier that day. Citing past examples, the member noted that technical issues at caucus meetings had resulted in findings of prima facie cases of privilege. While the member conceded that these examples concerned the unauthorized recording of caucus meetings, he argued that the technical issues preventing simultaneous interpretation had the same effect of impeding members in the discharge of their parliamentary duties. The member for Mégantic—L'Érable noted that, as a francophone, he felt particularly impacted by the failure of the interpretation system, since the majority of the discussions were in English. While grateful for the attempts made by the interpreters to provide service, he expressed concern that francophones are disadvantaged in such situations and that English would come to predominate. The member for Salaberry—Suroît agreed with the member for Mégantic-L’Érable’s contentions. After having praised the remarkable work done by interpreters, she added that technical difficulties are also regularly encountered in committee meetings. In her opinion, technical issues affecting interpretation in caucus meetings and committee meetings both infringe on the rights of members. Being able to participate in parliamentary proceedings and other activities in the official language of their choice is critical to members, committee witnesses and all who interact with Parliament. It is an obligation the Chair takes very seriously. While some have expressed concern about a possible decline, recent statistics compiled by House administration show that the use of each official language by members and by witnesses has been at roughly the same percentage over the past three years. Our mutual understanding is only possible with the work of our interpreters and the reliability of our audio system. While our audio system that supports simultaneous interpretation generally works very well, issues do, on rare occasions, occur. In a ruling on a similar matter, one of my predecessors stated on March 3, 2014, at page 3429 of the Debates: In the case of official languages, the House has a long-standing practice of ensuring the availability of professional interpreters during House and committee proceedings. Indeed, this practice extends to many other activities, such as caucus meetings, briefings or any number of parliamentary activities and events. […] if a technical problem arises with the equipment, proceedings are suspended until the issue is resolved. Members will be familiar with this as it has sometimes happened here in the House. In this case, when the matter was first raised, I asked for a report from the House administration on the circumstances surrounding the technical difficulties that were encountered. As is the standard practice, technical staff conducted tests of the room early in the morning. However, immediately prior to the start of the caucus meeting, an additional pre-meeting test was conducted and an issue was identified with the audio system. Some mitigating measures were put in place, but the problem nonetheless persisted. The caucus meeting proceeded without interpretation and, unfortunately, the issue was resolved only towards the end of the meeting. The Chair wants to reassure members that this matter is being taken very seriously by myself and the entire House administration. Technical teams are continuing their tests and troubleshooting to prevent issues like this from occurring again. While the Chair empathizes with members' frustrations over technical issues that sometimes disrupt our work, in a ruling such as this, the Chair must arrive at a decision within the confines of parliamentary privilege. In other words, the Chair must determine if the technical issues at a caucus meeting impeded members in performing their parliamentary duties and whether the matter should be given priority consideration by the House, but first the Chair must determine if a caucus meeting is, indeed, considered a parliamentary proceeding. In the same ruling cited earlier, it is stated at page 3430 of the Debates: Whether a member who is preparing to participate in proceedings—whether through a technical briefing or some other means—is not participating in the proceedings themselves. While such preparation is no doubt important, it remains ancillary to, rather than part of, Parliament's proceedings. In the case before us, it is the view of the Chair that a caucus meeting is ancillary to proceedings. The member for Salaberry—Suroît also raised concerns relating to committee meetings, which undoubtedly constitute parliamentary proceedings. That said, it is a well-established practice that the Chair does not intervene in committee matters in the absence of a report from the committee. While the Chair appreciates that there have been interruptions in a variety of committees, none of these has reported it to the House as a potential breach of privilege. For the issue raised by the House Leader of the official opposition as well as technical issues in committees, there exist other administrative recourses to address them. To this end, the Board of Internal Economy appears to be the appropriate forum. In light of this, the Chair does not find a prima facie question of privilege. I thank members for their attention.

905 words

Mr. Majid Jowhari (Richmond Hill, Lib.)

Feb/13/23 3:45:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-39

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. I am pleased to rise today to speak to the government's proposed Bill C-39, which seeks to extend the exclusion clause for those requesting MAID and whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness. I would like to take a few moments to draw our attention to the MAID monitoring regime and what we know about MAID cases to this point. Canadians hold personal and very strong views on medical assistance in dying. They deserve accurate and reliable information to inform their decisions and their opinions. This is why we are working to ensure that our public communications are clear and comprehensive through our annual reports. We know that a lack of accessible information opens the door to misinformation about evolving MAID systems. To be clear, while the proposed legislation would not impact the monitoring regime directly, a year's delay could bring the added benefit of more time to collect and the ability to report on important data regarding those complex cases where death is not reasonably foreseeable. Putting this into perspective and context, our government acknowledges the importance of the data and reporting in relation to MAID, so much so that the original 2016 legislation obligated the minister of health to collect the necessary information and report annually on MAID activity. This formal monitoring system is important to informing our understanding in three ways: who applies for MAID in Canada, medical conditions prompting requests and trends in MAID cases since the 2016 legislation. As such, we have been working in collaboration with provinces and territories, as well as other health care partners, to ensure a robust monitoring system. It is important to understand that this is a significant, collaborative commitment. Let us begin with a glimpse into what we know right now. As of December 31, 2021, there had been a total of 31,664 MAID deaths in Canada. This is the total number of MAID deaths since the law permitting medical assistance in dying passed in 2016. MAID deaths represent 3.3% of all deaths in Canada as of 2021. This is very much in line with jurisdictions that have MAID regimes similar to Canada's. The proportion of all deaths attributed to MAID varies across the country, with the highest rates reported in Quebec and British Columbia, and lower rates in the remaining provinces and territories. Conditions include multiple comorbidities, cardiovascular disease, organ failure and respiratory illnesses. Although the current sample is small, 2021 data also shows that, where death was not reasonably foreseeable, 50% of individuals were approved for MAID, compared to 81% of cases where death was foreseeable. Each MAID request where the person's natural death is not reasonably foreseeable is complex and unique, and early indicators show that approvals for MAID in this stream are much lower than when the person's death is reasonably foreseeable, 50% versus 81%. The assessment process for a person whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable is often much more challenging due to the nature and complexity associated with medical conditions of this population. These assessments require detailed clinical analysis of each one of the elements of the eligibility criteria, which define a grievous and irremediable medical condition. Let us spend a little bit of time talking about the human aspect of this data collection. We should acknowledge that behind every data element in our annual report is, indeed, a human story. Implicated in each case is a group of people, their families, MAID assessors and providers, health care teams, and most importantly, the person making the request for MAID. The data we collect comes from thoughtful and compassionate conversations involving people who are making the most important decision of their lives and the MAID practitioners. The practitioners are responsible for assessing the requester in accordance with the person's wishes and the law. Through these discussions and the recording of information arising from them, we have a robust monitoring and reporting system for MAID in Canada. MAID practitioners must ensure that every requester is aware of the services available that might relieve their suffering. This includes exploring treatment options, facilitating referrals and following up on the outcomes. When faced with a MAID request where death is not reasonably foreseeable, assessors spend much more time gathering the necessary information about the person and their condition. The process often involves a review of many years of treatments, surgeries and/or medications, as well as consultation with one or more experts in order to exercise due diligence in making a decision regarding eligibility. New regulations for the monitoring of medical assistance in dying came into force on January 1 of this year. The MAID monitoring system will report on an expanded set of MAID data points that are collected according to these new regulations. The additional information should provide a greater understanding of persons applying for MAID whose natural deaths are not reasonably foreseeable, as well as their associated circumstances. In conclusion, we are committed to transparency and accountability across all levels of government to ensure public confidence in the MAID regime. We are honouring this commitment by providing Canadians with accurate and reliable information on MAID as it continues to evolve in this country.

894 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Feb/13/23 3:53:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-39

Madam Speaker, I was very surprised listening to my colleague talking about the numbers they have. In 2016 there were 1,200 cases of MAID. That doubled in 2017 and doubled again in 2018. It was over 10,000 in 2021. That is nearly 30 people dying in this country every single day. That is more than double all the deaths from breast cancer or all the suicides in this country. We were promised a process to make sure we were not implementing a regime that was doing this without really strong checks and balances. I find it staggering that the member could say this thing is working when we see such massive increases, much higher than in Europe or anywhere else, in medically assisted death in this country.

129 words

All Topics