Madam Speaker, today we are examining Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. I wanted to read the full title because I am going to use it to back up what I am saying.
This is a huge bill, a mammoth bill. It is 430 pages long and seeks to amend 59 statutes and the Income Tax Regulations. However, since we have people who can read quickly, we noticed that King Charles III was hiding in this mammoth bill.
The government is trying to sneakily introduce a measure in this budget implementation bill that will force us to be loyal to His Majesty and will enshrine in law the fact that Charles III is indeed Canada's sovereign. That is quite appalling.
It is more than just appalling. I am convinced that, while there are those who are just a bit complacent about this matter, there are others who find this extremely offensive because of their roots. I am sure that those who have indigenous or Acadian roots may find it offensive to have to recognize this archaic institution. Clearly, the government put this in a mammoth bill because mammoths are another archaic part of history. In fact, they have disappeared, just as the monarchy should.
For someone with Acadian roots, swearing an oath and recognizing this monarch in 2023 hurts deeply. We know the harm that was caused to the Acadian people and to indigenous peoples.
I do not get it. How is there not a majority of members here who agree with what I just said? They could make sure we have an honest bill and submit the issue in all honesty to the House in a separate bill. No, this is hidden in a mammoth bill that amends 59 statutes. I get the impression that the government is a bit ashamed of its monarch.
I am not the first member to speak to this bill, but the Bloc Québécois is voting against Bill C‑47. First of all, there is nothing in there for seniors. For years we have been asking the government why there is a two-tiered system for seniors, but it stubbornly refuses to change this. It is as though people between 65 and 74 do not have needs and were not affected by inflation. It is as though every senior between 65 and 74 had enough income to live it up every day, when the opposite is true.
According to epidemiological studies, many illnesses emerge at this age. If we add to that financial insecurity, instead of a life without too many worries about living comfortably and deciding to buy this or that product or this or that medication, we would see that it is far more costly, in many ways, not to make the program fair.
The bill should have included tax measures to allow seniors who want to work to do so without being penalized. Something should be done about that. I cannot understand this stubbornness. Obviously, this is the budget implementation bill. These measures were not in the budget, which is not surprising, but it will come as no surprise that I am criticizing it.
The bill contains no long-term solutions for funding health care. My colleague spoke before about Bill C-46 and Bill C-47. Bill C‑46 included a $2-billion transfer, without conditions, to Quebec and the provinces. Suddenly, Bill C‑47 decides that would be redundant. We thought it was a generous gesture, given the government's previous power grab.
Now the government is preparing an amendment to walk it back. We are going to work hard to ensure it remains in Bill C‑47. I am appealing to the social conscience of all so-called Liberal members. A Liberal is supposed to be a progressive who is in touch with what is happening. At present, I would truly like to see one Liberal rise and show me that, in the medium and long term, the health transfers being provided are enough to meet the needs that the provinces and Quebec will have over the next ten years. That is an impossible task.
This does not mean that we do not appreciate the one-time investments made as a result of the pandemic. However, the structural problems of the health care system will not be fixed with one-time investments. The government made non-recurring investments when medium- and long-term structural investments were needed to rebuild the health care systems and to ensure that a pandemic will never again undermine and weaken these systems to the point that we have to lock down for a year, for example.
It is appalling, what is happening here. Taking away this $2 billion is shameful. That they would even consider taking it away is shameful, indecent even. They are offering crumbs. As I said before, the provinces were asking for $28 billion a year, from coast to coast to coast. The government offered them $4.6 billion with a gun to their heads. Take it or leave it; the budget was already written. The government thinks that that will be enough for the provinces to be able to take care of their aging population and cover all other needs, which ballooned and became more acute during the pandemic because of the delays and the waiting lists.
The Standing Committee on Health has done a study on the collateral effects of the pandemic. In the midst of the third wave, the experts came to us and said that even if we injected that $28 billion during that wave, it would still take 10 years for us to claw our way out of the pandemic. Imagine that. The government did not inject the money until after the eighth wave, and offered only $4.6 billion in new money, thinking that it would be enough for the provinces to take care of their people.
There is nothing in the bill for EI. Worse still, the government is about to pilfer $17 billion from the EI fund, because the only budget item it has decided not to absorb is EI. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have ever put back into the EI fund the $57 billion the federal government stole from it.
My father worked and paid into EI all his life. He was proud to pay into it for his colleagues who might need it and for workers who would probably need it. It made him proud to pay into it out of solidarity, but to never have personal need of it. He took pride in that.
What has this government done? It has pilfered $57 billion from the fund and has never returned it. Today, when it should be able to pay back $17 billion of that amount, it has decided to pay it by increasing workers' premiums. It is shameful, and it is why I will be voting against the bill.
1193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Official Languages Act has been around for a while. The government wanted to modernize it and, when they did, it was because it had failed. The act did not ensure the survival of French throughout Canada, from coast to coast to coast, or ensure that francophone minorities are treated in the same way as the anglophone community in Quebec.
Can my colleague tell me how he reconciles the government's desire to table Bill C‑13 to try to slow the decline of French with its introduction of an action plan that will provide $280 million in funding to the anglophone community in Quebec to ensure its survival, as though English were threatened in Quebec, in Canada and across North America?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 2:58:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are needs throughout Quebec's health care system. The system is in crisis.
The Liberals did not prioritize those needs in their budget. The Liberals prioritized the needs of the Liberals. They have not listened to Quebec's demands. Their main concern is to make sure they stay in power by maintaining their alliance with the NDP. Their priority is insuring a majority, not insuring dental care.
Is the government committed to respecting Quebec's unanimous request? I repeat: It is asking for the right to opt out with full compensation.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 2:57:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are plenty of health care needs in Quebec.
Rather than responding to those needs in the budget, the Liberals are creating a new dental care program on top of the one we already have in Quebec. That is close to $3 billion that Quebec could put into areas where it would be more useful or use to improve the existing program. That is why the Quebec National Assembly just unanimously called for Quebec to have the right to opt out with full compensation.
Will the government commit to honouring the unanimous request of Quebec's elected officials?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, clause 13 of Bill C-26 essentially allows the government to take new measures to protect critical cyber systems by order in council. That gives it a lot of flexibility. There is more flexibility there than in the legislative process.
Does my colleague think that the bill should be amended in committee so that we can be certain the government will be accountable to Parliament?
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, is the member telling us that algorithms and access to algorithms are easy things to decrypt? Is that actually what she is telling us?
Basically, as she sees it, the only way to avoid any interference in broadcasting and streaming is to abolish the CRTC.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in her speech, my colleague said that Bill C‑11 paves the way for algorithm manipulation. That is worrisome. Can she tell me how, technically, it is possible to manipulate algorithms?
How does she know, technically, that Bill C‑11 will provide control over algorithm manipulation?
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, how does my colleague explain the fact that all of Quebec's creators and artists, regardless of their sphere of practice, are eagerly awaiting this bill? If anyone is sensitive to the issue of censorship, it is our creators and artists.
How is it that they are looking forward to us passing Bill C‑11, yet the Conservatives alone see it as censorship?
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak on Bill S‑209, an act respecting pandemic observance day.
This bill officially designates a day that has been recognized as a national day of observance since 2021. Indeed, the World Health Organization declared March 31, 2021, as a national day of observance.
March 11 was designated by proclamation as a national day of observance in 2021. The Quebec government chose to organize a national day of observance in 2021 and 2022.
This is an important subject, and it goes beyond any form of partisanship. We were all hit by the pandemic, regardless of where we lived or who we were.
The Bloc Québécois will support this bill since the goal is observance, which allows us to highlight and remember the solidarity, the generosity, the sense of duty and the resilience of all those who worked to get us out of the pandemic.
Additionally, it is an opportunity to never forget those who were affected in any way, shape or form by the pandemic, as well as all those taken by this disease.
I want to take this opportunity to extend my deepest condolences to all of the families who were left in mourning by COVID‑19 and its disastrous consequences. Over 16,000 people died in Quebec, 45,000 in Canada and 6.5 million around the world.
In our societies, when we institute a day of remembrance, a day of commemoration, it is usually to mark the end of a socially harmful event. To build the future, we need to remember the past. That is why Quebec wisely chose “Je me souviens” or “I remember” as its motto.
Fortunately, it is human nature to try to turn a bad situation into something good, something ugly into something beautiful and something negative into something positive. That is a survival mechanism that has allowed us to be, to exist and to move forward again and again, hardship after hardship, and grow stronger. Humanity always emerges stronger from tragedy. We always find a way to do so.
When I was young, I read history books that talked about the epidemics and pandemics that ravaged humanity as though they were novels. Sometimes my grandparents would tell me about when they were young and about how they saw a staggering number of people dead in the streets from the Spanish flu. I would listen, shivering in horror, and tell myself that, thanks to modern medicine, that sort of thing would never happen in our time. Like many other people, I was fooling myself.
When the epidemic was declared in mainland China, who would have thought that it would transform into a global pandemic and that we would experience such tragedy and horror? Who would have believed it?
Beyond the armchair quarterbacks who always know better than anyone else, after the fact of course, what should have been done, beyond all the shortcomings, blunders, the actions that did or did not succeed, which we are assessing because we must always learn from our mistakes, beyond all that, we need to simply celebrate the memory of those who passed away.
We must celebrate the courage and humanity of those who suffered, celebrate those who fought in their own way to get us through the pandemic and to let hope and light emerge from the bleak times in which we were living. We must remember all that.
It is during these pivotal moments in history, which are so brief but so intense at the time, that we see the beauty and the strength of our societies.
We also have a duty to note and highlight everyone's invaluable contributions to the fight against this pandemic.
That is why I immediately think of all the health care workers who, also struck by an unknown and devastating virus, stepped up to hold failing health care systems together with the sole purpose of saving lives, saving our loved ones, our friends, our neighbours, our spouses and partners. Health care workers are the ones who never stopped making a difference. Doctors, nurses, orderlies, ambulance attendants, cleaning staff, support staff, and so on. They have all been on the front lines, one battle at a time. We can never do enough to say “thank you”.
It is also important to acknowledge the work and dedication of our guardian angels, the asylum seekers who provided patient care at the height of the COVID‑19 pandemic and to whom our governments have committed to regularize their status. We owe them a great deal, and we must not forget them now.
Where would we have been without them, but also without the many other essential service workers, those without whom we would not have made it through this pandemic? They proudly held down the fort and ensured that our basic needs such as electricity, food and medicine were met, despite their own worries and fatigue.
Let us not forget to acknowledge the incredible resiliency of our young people and their extraordinary ability to adapt when they were asked to go against their very nature to protect the rest of our society. Even though we did not want to, we had to make them put their life on hold and they will never get back those moments that they missed. These young people suffered, but they have recovered and they now have even more lust for life than they did before. Despite it all, they remained strong and ready to fight. These young people are our future, a beautiful future.
I am talking about young people, but I also want to talk about our seniors, who suffered so much and who were the most hard hit by COVID‑19. We asked a lot of our young people, but what can we say about the sacrifices that our seniors had to make? They, who were already vulnerable, were the main victims of this pandemic. They experienced social isolation, sickness and heartbreak. Today, when I see them recovering from the effects of the pandemic, when I see them smile with their resiliency that will become legendary, I am proud. I applaud them, and this day of commemoration will make it possible to honour them for their outstanding courage and endurance.
In closing, it is also vital to talk about everyone's resiliency. I am talking about those who had to give up their activities and stop living life to the fullest, those who lost their jobs, those who lost their business, those who had to watch their business go under or their loved ones die, suffering and alone. These are all the sacrifices, great and small, that we need to remember on this day of commemoration.
We often say it, but this time we proved it to be true: If you want to go fast, go alone, but if you want to go far, go together.
1166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill S‑209, an act respecting pandemic observance day—
19 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I invite my colleague to read the expert report, which clearly states that, when treatment exists, people are not automatically eligible for medical assistance in dying just because the treatment is hard to get.
That is the shortcut the Conservatives have been taking since the start of this debate. Just because a person with depression asks for MAID does not necessarily mean they will get it. Just because someone somewhere is considering MAID because they are depressed does not mean they will have access to it. That is what they do not understand. There are assessors, providers, professionals whose job is to provide care for people whose condition is reversible. Is anyone here going to suggest that depression is irreversible?
Our colleagues talked about the experiences of people who attempted suicide. In every case, the condition was reversible. In fact, some Conservative members even talked about their own experience. They are here to tell the tale. We have to see things clearly. There are 16 key recommendations that are worth reading. I invite them to read the report.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where my colleague got the idea that MAID is the first option offered to veterans.
Morally speaking, it is equally unacceptable to exploit veterans for ideological reasons, which is exactly what my colleague is doing.
If people are offering MAID to veterans who are known to have a reversible condition, they should be reported to the police, taken to court, and put in jail, period.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that people should not be induced to turn to medical assistance in dying in moments of weakness. I do not know where he is getting that from, but I just want to say that the expert panel's report on mental disorder makes no mention of that. When it comes to socio-economic determinants, which my colleague raised, the experts say that they need to be taken into account but that they are not part of the criteria for having access to medical assistance in dying.
I am not sure what he is talking about, but one thing is certain. Members need to stop using scare tactics all the time. Basically, the Conservatives are against medical assistance in dying in every situation, not just in the case of mental disorder. Many of them are even opposed to it when a person is terminally ill and already dying.
I would like to say to my colleague that, if he knows of any cases where a person has been induced to seek medical assistance in dying, then he must report them. The Criminal Code would apply, the police would intervene and those people would be brought to justice.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not know how many times I have to rise to say the same thing, but my Conservative colleagues are oversimplifying. That is okay. They are entitled to do that, what with free speech and all. However, among the experts who drafted the expert report and who addressed the issue of mental health care, none of them supports the idea of giving access to medical assistance in dying to someone who is depressed. It is quite the contrary. The expert report includes all the necessary safeguards to exclude those people.
It is true that socio-economic determinants can lead to depression and suicidal ideation, but those people would not be granted medical assistance in dying. I invite my colleagues to read the report because I have noticed that there is a lack of understanding of the safeguards and precautionary principles underlying each of the recommendations. There are 16 very important recommendations in the expert report, and I invite my colleagues to read it.
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his effort.
That said, if Bill C-39 were withdrawn, on March 17, mental disorders would not be excluded from medical assistance in dying. It is important to know what we are talking about.
Also, I do not know on what authority my colleague can claim that he would have had access to medical assistance in dying, given that the expert report clearly states that no expert on the planet considers suicidal ideation to be irreversible. Therefore, even if he was thinking about suicide, he would not have had access to medical assistance in dying.
What makes him say that he would have had access to MAID?
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his touching testimony.
I want to tell him that, in a debate like this, it is important to be able to distinguish between various realities. This is not a debate about mental health. A debate about mental health means talking about prevention. This debate is not about all mental disorders but rather incurable mental disorders. We must accept that there are people with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia which is incurable and irreversible.
The suicidal state to which he refers, as he demonstrated both through his own testimony and that of other friends, is reversible. If he reads the expert panel's report, he will understand that this is not what is being discussed here and not what we will legislate. A suicidal state is reversible. No effort will be spared to provide the resources needed to reverse that state.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River is well aware of my great respect for him. However, in listening to his speech, I found it riddled with confusion.
I wondered whether he read the expert panel's report on mental illness as the sole underlying medical condition. I believe that our thinking may not be quite so different. I think that his practice has shown him the need to take care in adopting such an approach. However, in reading the report, he will see that there are many precautions in place and very specific guidelines.
Indeed, just because there are not very many mentally ill people experiencing tremendous suffering does not mean we must not move forward. One person experiencing unimaginable and intolerable suffering is, in my opinion, one too many.
I would like to know my colleague's thoughts on this.
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, all the data we have shows that people who are at the end of life have received palliative care. However, there are palliative care units that refuse to take someone into that unit because they allegedly requested medical assistance in dying. I find that unacceptable.
I feel that palliative care is a stepping stone to dying with dignity. As part of the process, someone may request medical assistance in dying. That must be respected. Not everyone can manage to endure their pain and live an existence that makes them suffer to the end.
I do not think the choice is ours; it belongs to the person. There is no reason why the government should not accept a patient's decision, their free choice. They must make an informed decision that is not subject to change, as we heard from some witnesses in committee. We were told that when some physicians had a patient before them requesting medical assistance in dying, they would force them to change their mind so that they would not ask for it and receive only palliative care.
Imagine the opposite scenario. That would make the news everywhere for months.
196 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will have to say it: The government was not a good student. It dragged its feet for too long. It established the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying far too late.
When Bill C-7 was passed, the government committed to reviewing the act. We did more than review the act, because we looked at other facets. What the special joint committee did was review the existing act.
However, there was an unnecessary election in the meantime, and that caused delays. Our work was constantly disrupted by ultimatums from the court or by our own inability to meet the deadlines we ourselves had set. That is unfortunate.
I sincerely believe that, once the expert panel tabled its report, after doing the job properly, we needed to take the time to set up all the infrastructure necessary to get past the level of a house of horrors in terms of mental disorders and MAID.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
