Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into petty politics. I am not saying that my colleague's question is at that level, but I do not want to get into that.
What I want to say, however, is that we can see the shortcut that my Conservative colleagues sometimes take when they speak. They act like MAID is the only choice, but that is not true. A person can die a natural death without any problems. MAID is only morally acceptable if, and only if, it is voluntary, period.
I want all my colleagues to feel well supported in dying, because that is what palliative care actually is: support for people who are dying. I hope that as each of them lies on their deathbed, they are able to wake up one morning and feel completely at peace and ready to go, rather than lingering in agony. I hope they will be able to benefit from MAID. That is the best we can hope for for any human being: to depart this life in peace.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that before I dove into this subject, read the expert panel's report multiple times and asked endless questions, I was among the unconvinced.
Second, because we cannot cut corners on this issue, the entire community of professionals in mental health care, mental wellness and mental illness needs to be informed and trained. It will require an adequate number of service providers and assessors. It will require guidelines. Each of the regulatory bodies from coast to coast will need to establish standards of practice for their members, so as to ensure safe, effective and adequate implementation.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by providing some background on Bill C-39, which is not rocket science, when it comes down to it. Then I would like to talk about the philosophical foundation for dying with dignity, as well as the context and whether or not medical assistance in dying should be extended to patients whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder. I would also like to talk about mental illness generally in our societies and the experts' report before finally concluding my speech.
The context is rather simple. This is not about rehashing the entire debate. We are studying Bill C-39, which simply defers the provision in Bill C-7 that would have ended the two-year exclusion for mental disorders on March 17, 2023.
Following consultations, the government has decided to extend this exclusion clause for one year, which means that on March 17, 2024, mental disorders, or rather individuals whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder, would be eligible for MAID, subject to the conditions, limits, guidelines, standards of practice, safeguards and precautionary principles outlined in the expert report.
Before voting, I invite all parliamentarians in the House to read the report of the expert panel. It contains precautionary principles that do not lend credence to last week's comments by, for example, the leader of the official opposition. It really puts into perspective the ideology underlying the comments by my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton. Let me dive right into this matter.
Why is there such a delay? The reason is that we believe things should be done properly by the medical world. When a mental disorder is the sole basis for a request for MAID, how prepared are those working in this field across the country to ensure that MAID is adequately and safely delivered in light of the safeguards?
More providers and seasoned assessors will be needed. I should note that the experts did say that assessing whether a person with a mental disorder has the capacity to choose MAID is something they are already doing. Often a person may have cancer and also suffer from a mental disorder. It is not the sole underlying medical condition, and they still need to establish the person's capacity to decide for themselves. Again, in response to the oversimplification by my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton, first a person needs to want MAID, and then they need to meet the criteria.
As far as mental disorders are concerned, to meet the criteria, this is not going to happen overnight or anytime soon. It is going to take decades before anyone can have access. It is going to take time for the whole range of necessary treatments and possible therapies to be tested without the condition that the person demonstrate that they cannot bear any more and that their pain cannot be relieved. That is a long way from people living in poverty, who are depressed and who might have access to medical assistance in dying. We are far from it.
That being said, what are we talking about? When we talk about medical assistance in dying, I know that everyone in the House wants to do the right thing. Everyone has the best of intentions and wants to look after the best interests of patients and people who are suffering. However, being compassionate does not square with undermining human dignity. Human dignity is grounded in the capacity for self-determination.
Those are the philosophical premises. The law grants any individual with a biomedical condition the right to self-determination. Nothing can be done without the patient's free and informed consent. To that end, the role of the state is not to decide what that patient, who is the one suffering, needs. Rather, the state must ensure the conditions needed for them to exercise free will, so that patients can make a free and informed decision.
Historically, it was difficult to fight medical paternalism. At one time, people who had reached the terminal phase of an incurable disease did not have the right to die. The right to die was acquired, and it was called palliative care. Life was artificially prolonged, and people died from clinical trials or new therapies rather than dying a peaceful death in palliative care. However, palliative care is not a substitute for medical assistance in dying.
I find it strange that my colleague thinks it is unacceptable to grant access to medical assistance in dying to someone whose soul is suffering, and that he even opposes any form of medical assistance in dying, even when people are at the end of their life. He is opposed. At some point, if people are opposed, they need to explain why.
Why does the law recognize people's right to bodily autonomy throughout their lifetime but take it away from them at the most intimate moment of their lives? The government or our neighbour is not the one dying, so on what basis is the government giving itself the authority to decide for us at the most intimate moment of our lives?
These are the ethical and philosophical grounds and principles behind our position. Just because someone has a mental disorder does not mean that they should also be subject to social discrimination and stigma. Even though mental illness is now considered to be an actual illness, mental health is still not on the same footing as physical health. Mental illness results in discrimination and stigma.
Should we be telling people who have to deal with such discrimination and stigma that they will also never be given the right to MAID, even if they have been suffering from a mental illness and have had schizophrenia, for example, for 25 or 30 years? On what grounds are we refusing them that right? That is the basis of the expert panel's report. Do we give that right to someone with a mental disorder who is suffering, who has tried everything, whose problems are far from over and who says that they cannot go on?
There are people out there who have an ache in their soul, and unfortunately, we lose them when they attempt suicide. It is really no better. We absolutely must fight against suicide because it is one decision that cannot be undone.
In the report, the experts set out several precautionary measures. They talk about structural vulnerabilities like poverty. On page 11 of the report, the experts state the following: “In the course of assessing a request for MAiD—regardless of the requester's diagnoses—a clinician must carefully consider whether the person's circumstances are a function of systemic inequality”, and, if so, this should be addressed.
With respect to suicidal ideation, experts offer us another precautionary measure. It is not enough for a person to request MAID to have access to it.
The report states: “In any situation where suicidality is a concern, the clinician must adopt three complementary perspectives: consider a person's capacity to give informed consent or refusal of care, determine whether suicide prevention interventions—including involuntary ones—should be activated, and offer other types of interventions which may be helpful to the person”.
What is this claim about people who are depressed being able to request MAID? Members need to stop talking nonsense. That is not what the expert panel's report says. It says that incurability can be established over the course of several years. The patient must have exhausted all available therapies and treatments. However, that does not include overly aggressive therapy.
What does the member for St. Albert—Edmonton think should happen? When a person with a psychiatric disorder says that they reached their breaking point years ago, should psychiatric science insist that there is a treatment out there and that it is going to find it? That is what I mean by overly aggressive therapy.
Overly aggressive treatment may exist for all types of illness. Who gets to decide when it is too much? The Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Quebec have told us that it is up to the patient to decide. That is important, because the member for St. Albert—Edmonton keeps saying that we are cutting lives short, ending lives prematurely.
In reality, the opposite is true. Everyone wants to live as long as possible. People who are on what we call the second track, whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, want to live as long as possible. What they do not want is to be denied help when they reach their breaking point. If we do not give them access to MAID, they will find their own way to avoid ending up in that situation, because it is currently illegal for them, and they will end their lives prematurely. They will commit suicide.
The ruling that some contend should have been appealed to the Supreme Court states that there is an infringement on the right to life. The Conservatives' position infringes on the right to life because it forces people to end their lives prematurely rather than waiting for the moment of death, which sometimes is in one or two years. As proof, there is the case of Ms. Gladu. She did not go ahead with MAID, but she was relieved to know that she had that option. She did not commit suicide; she died naturally.
However, if her suffering became intolerable, she knew that she could access MAID because our compassionate and empathetic society would take care of her and ensure that she had a peaceful and dignified death. This meant that she could have the death that she did. Many people say that they choose to end their lives because they are not certain that they will be taken care of.
Is there anything more devastating than a suicide? That is a societal failure. We cannot be complacent about suicide attempts, about people feeling suicidal. In the health care system, mental illness, which is an illness like any other, absolutely must have all the necessary resources.
I just want to say a few words about the governments' ability to pay for the health care needs of the patients I am talking about, given the feds' post-pandemic offer. Governments have to deliver care to these people with irreversible illnesses, but they will not be getting money to do so. Over the next 10 years, they will barely be able to cover indexing on chronically insufficient funding. The federal government's share will go up from 22% to 24%. I hope government members are not too proud of that, especially considering that, during the third wave, people told us the system was in critical condition. The pandemic had destabilized it to the point that it would take 10 years to recover from the pandemic's side effects on patients without COVID. Right in the middle of the third wave, the Prime Minister said it would all be dealt with after the pandemic. We were told an agreement was imminent. I figured that they would come close to the $28 billion everyone expected, that they would give the governments of Quebec and the provinces the predictable funding they needed to rebuild their systems, take care of people over the next 10 years and finally recover from the pandemic.
I have heard the Conservatives say they will honour that small percentage. Of all the G7 countries, Canada still has the best borrowing capacity. If debt is unavoidable, what better justification for it than taking care of our people and restoring and rebuilding our health care systems?
I hear people say that individuals who have had an incurable mental disorder for years should not be given access to MAID on account of structural vulnerabilities. According to the expert report, however, two independent psychiatrists would have to be consulted. Not only would two independent psychiatrists be required, but we also have to consider recommendation 16. So far, I have been talking about recommendation 10, but my colleagues should hold on to their hats, because recommendation 16 states that, unlike for other kinds of MAID, when mental disorders are involved, there would be something called “prospective” oversight. This is different from retrospective oversight, as required by Quebec's commission on end-of-life care, which requires a justification every time MAID takes place. No, this does not happen after, but rather before, in real time.
This prospective oversight needs to be established in each jurisdiction, which is precisely what the delay will be used for. This additional safeguard needs to be established in controversial cases. According to the expert report, when an individual's capacity cannot be properly assessed, MAID is not provided, period. It is not complicated. There will be no slippery slope.
If there is a slippery slope, there is the Criminal Code, the courts, the police. Evil people do not belong in the health care system. They would be fired. If they do harm, they can be taken to court. To my knowledge, the provisions allow action to be taken.
My esteemed colleague seems to assume that everyone in health care is necessarily evil, which is absurd. The slippery slope is based solely on health care workers having evil intentions. However, to work in that field, people have to demonstrate skills proving the opposite. Consequently, all the precautionary measures and principles in this report are sufficient, in my opinion.
What needs to be done now is to ensure that people get training. Not all Quebec psychiatrists have read the report. If they listen to interviews given by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, they will wonder what is happening with their profession.
We must be able to see things realistically and proportionately, provide training, and ensure that we implement a law that will be both accessible and equitable throughout the country. We must avoid situations where an institution that does not want to provide MAID prevents someone from accessing it, if it is their choice and they meet all the criteria.
This is still a dangerous situation. It is happening in Quebec, and the college of physicians warned last week that, in a simple case of MAID for a terminal patient, some doctors did not want to refer the patient to another doctor who was willing to provide it.
2414 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as a Conservative, my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton has never made so many references to science. I understand that he is passionate about this, but he is claiming that the report of the expert panel says things that it does not, particularly with regard to ending one's life prematurely in the case of mental illness.
The only way for a person to end their life prematurely is by attempting or committing suicide. A person who is suicidal will never be given medical assistance in dying based on the assessment of one or even two experts. Feeling suicidal is a reversible condition. A suicidal state is reversible, and the condition for obtaining medical assistance in dying is the irreversibility of the mental disorder. The expert panel report states on page 13 that “the incurability of a mental disorder cannot be established in the absence of multiple attempts at interventions with therapeutic aims.”
A person who attempts suicide and comes under pediatric care as a result will have to be monitored. They will probably never have access to medical assistance in dying on the grounds of a suicidal disorder. Eligibility must be established over a period of years, not in a crisis situation. The individual will also have to prove that they have tried every form of treatment and have never refused treatment that could have treated the condition.
This is a sensitive subject, so people should be careful what they say. I hope my colleague will see reason. Those across the aisle are not the only ones vulnerable to blinding ideology
268 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in a debate as sensitive as this, we would expect every parliamentarian in the House of Commons to lend some dignity to this debate and demonstrate a strong sense of responsibility.
Last week, in the middle of question period, on the topic of mental disorders being the sole underlying medical condition, the official leader of the opposition said to the Prime Minister something to the effect that there were people suffering who were destitute, living in poverty and struggling with depression, and that all this government had to offer them was medical assistance in dying.
I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on these types of comments that, in my opinion, will prevent us from having a calm and productive debate not only from a theoretical perspective, but also with respect to the situation with the bill and what it really covers. In short, we are talking here about misinformation.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 5:16:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 5:13:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will try to remain calm even though I heard arguments throughout the day that really betray ignorance.
When a human community established within the same territory has language, culture and heritage, when it is animated by a collective conscience and a desire to go down in history, and when all members of the community are on board with a common enterprise, that is called a nation.
The House of Commons claims to recognize the Quebec nation. The Quebec nation, via the people's elected representatives who make up its parliament, the National Assembly, democratically passed Bill 21 and Bill 96. The Canadian Constitution says that a parliament must be above governments. However, the Liberals currently in the House seem inclined toward the judicialization of politics. They lack courage and would rather refer the debate to the courts to decide in the people's stead. In the last election, the people of Quebec re-elected the 90 members of the government that introduced and passed these laws. Where, then, is the democratic deficit?
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 5:10:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague say that we had better things to do than to talk about the notwithstanding clause.
However, I would point out to him that the notwithstanding clause ensures two things for the Quebec nation and the Quebec National Assembly: the separation of church and state, in the case of Bill 101, and the continued existence of the French language, thanks to Bill 96.
On behalf of a nation that intends on passing the test of time, I want give my colleague the chance to reconsider his words because if he still maintains that it is a lost cause for Quebeckers, I want to make sure that he and his party face the political consequences of their position in Quebec.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 4:25:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about one of the greatest minds in multiculturalism, Will Kymlicka.
Regarding the Quebec nation and its desire to have access to certain tools, such as the notwithstanding clause, Kymlicka wrote: “Had Quebec not been guaranteed these substantial powers—and hence protected from the possibility of being outvoted on key issues by the larger anglophone population—it is certain that Quebec either would not have joined Canada in 1867 or would have seceded sometime thereafter.”
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 4:11:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, yes, I have a point of order.
Since you mentioned it, I would urge you to ensure fairness and respect the rotation. Earlier, you twice recognized, twice in a row, an NDP member when it was our turn to speak. You also recognized the NDP when it was the Conservatives' turn to speak. I urge you to respect the rotation as soon as people stand up to indicate that they want to speak.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 4:04:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, I think the minister should not start a debate on that topic. It is a diversion. It is unnecessary. He is a Quebecker. The choice belongs to him. To be a Quebecker is a political choice and it is not the same as looking like a Quebecker. I suggest to him a book by Michael Mandel, a professor of constitutional law at York University in Toronto, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Judicialization of Politics in Canada, written in the 1990s. If he has read the book, I do not think he understood it. The same applies to the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.
Now, I would like to say that I almost stood up earlier to raise a question of privilege, because the minister is misleading the House.
The Bloc motion calls for recognition of the Act respecting the Constitution Act, 1982, René Lévesque's law, which pre-emptively introduced the notwithstanding clause into all Quebec laws. This is what—
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 2:42:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, everyone except the minister knows that the health crisis has been caused by the federal government's chronic underfunding. Quebec and the provinces have calculated that they need an additional $28 billion a year; the government is putting $4.6 billion on the table. His offer guarantees that there will continue to be problems with health care for at least 10 more years. His offer will ensure that health care is chronically underfunded, and he has the gall to say that he expects results.
Does the minister realize that offering so little deprives sick people of basic care?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 2:41:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the federal government promised a substantial offer to support the health care system. Instead, we got a substantial disappointment. The minister knew that Quebec and the provinces needed $28 billion more each year to fix their health care systems. He has barely offered them one sixth of that.
Is the minister seriously trying to say that by offering one sixth of the money needed, he is giving Quebec the means to fix the problems in its health care system?
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 4:35:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to say that my thoughts are with the friends and families of the children and adults who were the victims of the terrible tragedy at Garderie éducative Ste‑Rose in Laval. I think we are all in shock following this terrible incident, and words fail us. I cannot imagine what the parents of the children who go to this day care are feeling. I want them to know that we are with them.
I have had the privilege of representing the people of Montcalm since 2015. It is as much an honour for me today as it was the first day. During the first oral question period in which I participated, the member for Rivière-du-Nord asked for an increase in health transfers. Members will recall that, in 2011, the Harper government cut the health transfer escalator in half, reducing it from 6% to 3%. That was grossly insufficient to cover system costs. By 2015, we were feeling the repercussions of that decision. I have had the privilege of sitting in the House for almost eight years, and all that time, we have been constantly repeating that health transfers must increase.
Two years ago, Quebec and the provinces agreed to call for an increase in health transfers that would raise the federal government's share of health care funding from 22% to 35%. The way things are going, Quebec and the provinces will not be able to provide quality health care to the public.
If Ottawa underfunds health care, which is what it is doing, then there are three possible scenarios. Either health services decline, other government services decline because the governments of Quebec and the provinces have to use their own money to make up for Ottawa's cutbacks, or provincial debt spikes and the fiscal imbalance gets worse. Those are the three scenarios Quebec and the provinces are facing because of this lack of federal funding: deterioration of health services; underfunding of other government programs, including education, social services, roads and culture; or a growing fiscal imbalance. That is the choice that the federal government made by refusing to consider the premiers' legitimate and necessary demands. It has been putting the provinces on the road to austerity for 10 years.
Worse yet, the government is jeopardizing the quality of the services provided to the public. As the leader of the Bloc Québécois rightly said, the gap between the premiers' demand and this government's offer, which really ought to be called an ultimatum, should not be calculated in dollars. No, it should be calculated in terms of the number of people who will be abandoned. How many surgeries will be postponed? How many nurses and orderlies will be left to fend for themselves most of the time? What heartbreaking decisions will the health ministers in Quebec and the rest of Canada have to make in order to balance their budgets in a tight fiscal environment?
For years, my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I have been raising the matter by moving opposition motions, appearing with health care professionals, and tabling unanimous motions adopted by Quebec's National Assembly. We have asked questions relentlessly and reiterated the need to support exhausted and overworked health care workers. We have spoken about the tragedies unfolding in oncology and pediatric departments and the patients forced to wait months and months at the risk of their health, and sometimes even their lives.
The government said that our colleague was right and that that is why it was investing money, because it is so important. If it is that important, then it needs to invest the money because people are dying as we speak.
Yesterday, the government demonstrated that all it is capable of doing is saying the right thing, nothing more. The minister was also eloquent earlier.
Ottawa let its chequebook do the talking. It did not have much to say, other than that the provinces should just deal with it. Its offer is despicable. I say its offer, but when it is a take-it-or-leave-it situation, then it is more like an ultimatum. Its ultimatum is a 5% escalator for five years. I would remind the House that before the Harper era, it was 6%. They are not even going back to the Martin era. They are fixing the escalator issue, but only partly, because the cost of the system is now counted in sick people.
The aging population has put more pressure on the system, and the direct impact this has on health costs needs to be taken into consideration. We are talking about a 5% escalator for five years. The Prime Minister did not need to meet with the premiers of Quebec, the provinces and the territories to do that. He could have done it whenever he wanted to, unilaterally, just like when Stephen Harper unilaterally lowered the escalator from 6% to 3%. The Prime Minister could have announced this on his own, without an agreement.
The provinces were calling for an additional $28 billion a year for health. The federal government's response was $4.6 billion and that was its final offer. The government would have us believe that this is good news. Does the government have any mission more sacred than taking care of people? There are people who are sick, health care workers who are at the end of their rope. What is more important than being there for them? The Liberals would have us believe that they know more about health care needs than the health ministers for Quebec and the provinces and territories, that they know where to invest the money and how much is needed.
We are supposed to believe that the people who are not even capable of managing passports, managing borders and paying employees know how to fix the health care systems in Quebec and across the country. That is ridiculous. Quebec and the provinces needed a minimum of $280 billion over ten years. That was the minimum. Ottawa responded with $46 billion. That is a minimum shortfall of $230 billion in the coming years.
Basically, the federal government announced yesterday that the underfunding of health care will continue for the next 10 years. That is it, and that is all. The Liberals promised us a big offer, but all we got was a big disappointment. Sick people in Quebec and Canada are the ones who will pay the price.
1100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 6:02:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, here in the Bloc Québécois, we work as a team. Protecting and promoting supply management matters to all of us, not just the member for Montcalm, as does the outcome of tomorrow's vote.
Supply management has been a priority for me since I first came to the House in 2015, and, as the sponsor of Bill C‑282, I have to say that, for my friend and colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, protecting supply management has truly become an obsession. That obsession can be satisfied only once Bill C‑282 comes into force. To make that happen, we are going to need the tenacity and skill of our colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, because if Bill C‑282 makes it through the crucial vote tomorrow, it will then go to the Standing Committee on International Trade, of which our colleague is a member. I also have to say that it has the unconditional support of every member of the Bloc caucus, who stand not only with me, but with supply-managed producers.
As this debate at second reading comes to a close, I see that the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and his party will support my bill. Last week, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food held a press conference to announce that the Liberals are supporting Bill C‑282 at every stage. It is not clear where the Conservatives stand. They will sleep on it, but let us not take anything for granted, even though Bill C‑282 is identical to Bill C‑216, which, in case it needs to be repeated, received the support of a majority of members before the last unnecessary election.
I travelled around some of Quebec's major agricultural regions with my colleagues, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé and the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. We met a farming community that is more mobilized than ever and determined to defend and promote supply management. We also met Quebeckers who care deeply about the advantages of this agricultural model. Indeed, supply management has proven its worth, especially during the pandemic, in terms of self-sufficiency and food security, and consumers are finding that they have access to an adequate supply of high-quality food at competitive prices. They actually want to bring farmers closer to their plates. They want farms with a human dimension, not mega-farms that are fuelled by overproduction and the waste of food and resources.
Farmers in the United States actually want to return to supply management, because their model, based on overproduction, favours only mega-producers and makes human-scale farms disappear. This often means that quality disappears, as well. Consumers can see the beneficial effects of supply management on sustainable agriculture, on land use and on regional economies.
Our producers deserve to no longer feel threatened every time a free trade agreement is negotiated. They want predictability, they want to be able to imagine the future, to be able to ensure succession and to preserve their quality standards. The time has come to take action. All countries protect sectors of their economy that they consider to be essential before sitting down at the free trade table. In the United States, that is the case for cotton and sugar.
After several motions were unanimously adopted by the House of Commons, successive Conservative and Liberal governments did not keep their promises and, on three occasions, made long-term and irreparable breaches. Only one law will prevent this from happening again. My mother used to say that it is never too late to do the right thing. If we truly respect those who work to feed us, we must walk the talk and vote for Bill C‑282.
Therefore, I invite all Conservative parliamentarians who have yet to be convinced to vote for Bill C-282 so not one more government will take it upon itself to sacrifice, on the altar of free trade, supply management, our agricultural model and the men and women who feed us.
691 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 4:14:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about justice, about real problems on the streets, about the increase in violence, our discussions must be guided by the idea of justice and what is right. A fair balance means not distorting certain elements.
As much as we are sympathetic to the Conservatives' motion that refers to certain realities, they are masters at crafting motions that only they can vote for. They distort certain things, and of course we cannot support something that distorts reality.
My colleague talked specifically about Bill C‑75, which passed. If the prosecutor does his or her job properly, what happened in Ontario should never happen. The burden of proof regarding bail lies with the accused, not the Crown.
Could my colleague comment on the Conservative view that Bill C‑75 should be repealed because it does not meet the reverse onus?
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the government seems to feel that, because this is a noble cause, since it is about respecting the dignity of people living with disabilities, it can table a sloppy, amateurish bill, as we very often see with bills.
How does my colleague explain the fact that we do not know the criteria, the conditions, the amounts or the method of calculation? We are at third reading, but when I listen to the debates, I feel like we are only at the stage of debating the bill's principle. We are handing over a blank cheque, because the government is exploiting the vulnerability of certain people to justify its lax approach, as happens so often in the House.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, my colleague made a connection between the situation of people living with a disability and medical assistance in dying. He said that some people with disabilities would ask for MAID, or that MAID would be more accessible. First of all, the Bloc supports this bill. We believe that an individual impairment should not be regarded as a disability. Disability is a social construct.
That said, where is the member getting his facts? Medical assistance in dying providers do evaluations. No one who appeared before the Standing Committee on Health told us up front that the member opposite's claims are common practice. On the contrary, just because someone has a structural determinant, like poverty, does not necessarily mean they will be eligible for MAID. Where is the member getting this information?
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/23 3:02:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister cannot seem to understand is that health transfers are not a strictly political issue, but rather a human issue.
Burned-out nurses thinking about quitting their jobs, people on waiting lists who are worried about their health, people who are unable to see a doctor for treatment: these people are waiting for a concrete solution that includes a substantial and recurring increase in federal funding, not a PR stunt or political ploy.
After Tuesday's meeting, will the Prime Minister put an end to his chronic underfunding of health care?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
