So V ote

May/2/22 5:30:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. My colleague is perfectly correct. When I said that it limited the powers of the opposition parties and that it restricted debates in Parliament, this is an example of how a government can become arrogant and, with the complicity of another party, give itself the powers of a majority government. The voters elected a minority government. As such, I think that the government will have to pay a price for what it is doing now.

82 words

May/2/22 5:28:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, once again, my colleague is unable of rising above partisanship. That being said, my criticism of the government is that it introduced in a closure motion a file that it has mismanaged and has been very lax in addressing. Had it not been for the separate vote we were able to obtain concerning medical assistance in dying, we would have been forced to vote against it, when all we want is for that file to move forward. I will stop there because the member in question is always very partisan. He thinks that, by pointing a finger at the official opposition and saying that it would have done worse than his government, his government’s current actions are justified. However, it is the Liberals who are in power now.

132 words

May/2/22 5:13:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, how can someone claim to be able to call witnesses and have them submit briefs of no more than 1,000 words and talk to us for five scant minutes, when in Quebec we called experts who were given an hour for questions and answers and 15 minutes to explain their research? How can someone believe that the process would be credible with such a short deadline and a 10-page report? It is appalling. Let us take a brief look at the main reports produced on medical assistance in dying to show why October 17 was an entirely appropriate and realistic deadline. In 2012, in the National Assembly, the report of the Select Committee on Dying with Dignity entitled “Dying with Dignity” was 178 pages long. In 2016, the report of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying entitled “Medical Assistance in Dying: A Patient-Centred Approach,” was 60 pages long. In December 2018, the first report of the Council of Canadian Academies’ Expert Panel on Medical Assistance in Dying entitled “The State of Knowledge on Medical Assistance in Dying for Mature Minors” was 193 pages long. The second report, entitled “The State of Knowledge on Advance Requests for Medical Assistance in Dying” was 219 pages long. The third report, entitled “The State of Knowledge on Medical Assistance in Dying Where Mental Disorder is the Sole Underlying Medical Condition”, was 247 pages long. In 2019, Filion and Maclure’s report entitled “L’aide médicale à mourir pour les personnes en situation d’inaptitude: le juste équilibre entre le droit à l’autodétermination, la compassion et la prudence”, or medical assistance in dying for incapacitated persons: balancing the right to self-determination, compassion and prudence, was 157 pages long. This report was prepared following 17 eight-hour sessions. In December 2021, the report of the Select Committee on the Evolution of the Act respecting end-of-life care, submitted to the Quebec National Assembly, was 90 pages long. This report was prepared following 39 meetings with witnesses and 46 steering committee meetings. However, on our side, we would have to do the same thing in eight weeks, at a pace of one meeting a week, with witnesses who are not allowed to submit reports over 1,000 words long, so we could produce a report of no more than 10 pages. That is ridiculous. They put that in a closure motion and they think we are going to be happy about it. I have no problem with the Conservatives completely disagreeing with what I stand for on this file, but I will not go along with the work being done poorly or in a partisan manner or with a debate as important as this one being reduced to legal quibbling at the end of the session. That is how this government is behaving. The motion we are debating today is a prime example of how the Liberals have decided to act a like an arrogant majority government with support from the NDP. The message Canadians and Quebeckers sent during the election in September has gone by the wayside once again. This minority government, emphasis on minority, can go back to strongarming and cutting debate short when it feels like it. It is deplorable. The main purpose of today's motion, although meant to extend debate until midnight from Monday to Friday, is to muzzle the opposition parties, and I will prove it. I would like to add another consideration, which stems from a certain deference to House of Commons employees. We need to think about the repercussions that extending sittings until midnight will have on the interpreters' ability to do their work safely, both in the House of Commons and in committee. During the pandemic, we saw that virtual meetings created extra work for interpreters. In light of that, the Liberals should have shown greater consideration for them. Should we be surprised that they did not? We are concerned that, with all the extra work required of the interpreters, there will be fewer time slots available for committee meetings. Let us look at the first part of this motion, paragraph (a). It begins by stating that “on the day of the adoption of this order, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12:00 a.m.”. That is not a problem because the Bloc Québécois wants to sit, debate and work. On the issue of medical assistance in dying, we wanted to work on it before last April 8. Paragraph (a) continues, “that until Thursday, June 23, 2022, a minister of the Crown may, with the agreement of the House leader of another recognized party, rise from his or her seat at any time during a sitting, but no later than 6:30 p.m., and request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the current sitting or a subsequent sitting be 12:00 a.m., provided that it be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1 is to take place, and that such a request shall be deemed adopted”. To me, the words “with the agreement of the House leader of another recognized party” are clearly referring to the NDP. The government is talking about the NDP, but this is completely out of character for that party. This is not the first time a government has moved a motion like this one. Let us think back to the period from 2015 to 2019 and the democratic position of the so-called democratic party. At that time, the Liberals had a majoirity government. Earlier I spoke about how the Conservatives and the Liberals pass the buck back and forth, normalizing what is happening and accusing one another of the very thing that they themselves are doing. Then, they are shocked when people no longer have faith in democracy and go protest in the streets. On May 30, 2017, the opposition, including 34 NDP members, voted against Motion No. 14 on the extension of sitting hours and conduct of extended proceedings. On May 29, 2018, the opposition, including 30 NDP members, voted against Motion No. 22 on the extension of sitting hours and conduct of extended proceedings. On May 28, 2019, the opposition, including 30 NDP members, voted against Motion No. 30 on the extension of sitting hours and conduct of extended proceedings. Between 2011 and 2015, the Conservatives had a majority government. On June 11, 2012, 96 NDP members voted against Motion No. 15 on the extension of sitting hours from June 11 to 22, except on Fridays, pursuant to Standing Order 27. On May 22, 2013, the opposition, including 82 NDP members, voted against Motion No. 17 on the extension of sitting hours and the conduct of extended proceedings. On May 29, 2014, 28 NDP members voted against Motion No. 10 on the extension of sitting hours and the conduct of extended proceedings. The last time a minority government tabled such a motion, in 2009, it was defeated by the opposition. If a minority government tries to take away parliamentarians' privileges and their ability to debate, the opposition usually votes against it, as long as the opposition members are willing to stand up and respect the people who voted for them to oppose an arrogant majority government that governs like an absolute monarch. On June 9, 2009, the minority government was Conservative. On June 9, 2002, 138 opposition MPs, including 27 NDP members, voted against Motion No. 5 on extending the hours in June, and 134 members voted for the motion. We know that the Liberals and New Democrats have an agreement on Motion No. 11. The NDP always opposed such a move over the years, but this time, it decided to give in. This means that debate hours will be extended to midnight, Monday to Friday, provided that the government leader obtains the agreement of the NDP leader and makes the announcement before 6:30 p.m. If an emergency or take‑note debate is scheduled, the debate will be extended until 10:00 p.m. The minority government has complete control over the evening program without allowing the opposition to have any say on what happens in the House. That is the first problem. It is paragraph (c) that really limits the opposition's powers. The House leader of the official opposition spoke at length about this and did a brilliant job illustrating it, citing all the examples where the rights of the opposition could be flouted, so I do not need to repeat all of them. The most abhorrent part of this motion is paragraph (e), which extends the deadline for the final report on medical assistance in dying. As I said earlier, even though the Bloc agrees, it nevertheless took an appeal to the Chair to have the vote split, which, fortunately, we obtained. In closing, I implore all parties to take an approach that crosses partisan divides on this issue. I hope the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who said at one point that he did not agree with the October 17 date, can convince his colleagues to vote in favour of that part of the motion. That said, I would like to table an amendment to the amendment: That the amendment be amended, in subparagraph (a)(ii), by replacing the words “two sitting days’ notice” with the words “one sitting day’s notice”.

1658 words

All Topics

May/2/22 5:06:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, I rise in the House feeling extremely disappointed. I am disappointed with the government's vision of parliamentary democracy. What a waste of time and energy. Since securing the support of the NDP, the government has been acting with the arrogance of a majority government. Some will ask whether I am truly surprised. I will answer that I entered politics because, first and foremost, I refuse to be cynical. Last Thursday, I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government brazenly state that this type of motion was nothing out of the ordinary. A brief review showed me that, indeed, this happens too often in the House. The Liberals said that it was not uncommon and that it was not a big deal, because the Conservatives did it before. Just because the Conservatives did something once, that does not mean that another party is justified in doing the same thing once in power. There is no reason to normalize parliamentary mediocrity and an inability to manage the parliamentary agenda. The government has been lax, not to say lackadaisical, in administering its legislative agenda, especially when it comes to medical assistance in dying. There was an election, there were three sessions before the election, and a committee was created, but the committee was not recalled until late March, and its first meeting was held on April 8. That is totally unacceptable. In my view, this motion is unworthy of a democratic Parliament. It is despicable. Either this motion is malicious, deceptive and twisted, or it is astoundingly insensitive toward people who are suffering. Today, with this motion, not only is the government limiting the powers of the opposition parties, but it is doing so for partisan reasons. This is end-of-session quibbling over matters of life and death. The government is exploiting the issue of end-of-life care and capitalizing on the suffering of people who are dying, who are experiencing intolerable suffering, who would like to have access to support in dying with dignity and who would like the proper respect to be shown for their right to make a free, informed choice. These people trusted us last year when we passed Bill C-7. They assumed we would spend the next year conducting a rigorous, thorough cross-party analysis and produce a credible report on the revision of the act. In our opinion, the Liberals’ strategy is the epitome of cynicism. They are preparing to trample on the powers of the opposition parties with the NDP’s complicity, while in 2017, 2018 and 2019 the NDP voted against this type of motion. The Liberals are muzzling the opposition parties, something we have always voted against. They are imposing closure, but they are careful to add in the same motion what the Bloc Québécois wants, namely to extend the mandate of the joint committee until October 17. On the one hand, they are giving us less time. On the other hand, they are extending the deadline. Fortunately, knowing that we could not divide the motion, the Speaker allowed us to divide the vote. By tabling the motion last Thursday, however, the government placed the Bloc Québécois in a position where it had to vote against its desire to implement a rigorous and credible process to review the act respecting medical assistance in dying in order to allow the joint committee to submit a report worthy of expectations or alternatively compromise its principles of parliamentary democracy. This is the Liberals’ twisted way of governing. Since the last election, the government has dragged its feet when it came to reconstituting the special joint committee. It did so not in a separate motion, but—nice going—in a motion adopted under a gag order, which muzzled the opposition. Since the beginning of the 44th Parliament, the Bloc, represented by myself and my excellent House leader, has told the government that we were short on time and that we should proceed by consensus to extend the deadline for the joint committee’s report. A first compromise was made, and the deadline was extended until June 23. Unfortunately, to succeed, we would have had to sit continuously, and intensively, more than once a week, starting with the first meeting. The way we conduct this process is important for ensuring the credibility of the findings. This part of Motion No. 11 should at least have been moved separately. Discussions could have continued with the Conservative party; so far, the Conservatives are claiming that the June 23 deadline is reasonable and sufficient. Obviously, the schedule can be reorganized at the end of the session. Obviously, with this hybrid parliament, resources cannot be optimized to accommodate more work, even until midnight. Obviously, this limits the organization of business. Claiming that we can call witnesses and ensure—

823 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 57 - Apr/25/22

May/2/22 5:06:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, since I do not have the endless time allotted to the official opposition and have only 20 minutes for my speech, I will read it. I rise in the House— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Madam Speaker, I would request a modicum of decorum because I cannot hear myself speak.

53 words

Context: House Hansard - 57 - Apr/25/22

Apr/25/22 11:24:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the second point reads that “we need to make sure the conditions of work reflect the care standards our seniors deserve”. Everyone agrees that we have a collective responsibility to care for our seniors as individuals. However, the conditions of work in long-term care facilities and seniors' residences do not fall under federal jurisdiction. That is the first problem, and I will come back to it. The third point states that “the management of long-term care facilities is under provincial and territorial jurisdiction”. Here, they are basically admitting that it is none of their business. At least they are acknowledging it. The motion continues by saying, “we share the goal of ensuring safer, better care for seniors”. Well done. I am very happy to see that the federal government has the same goal as Quebec and the provinces, that is, to ensure better quality care for seniors. That is effectively what Quebec wants. However, health care is not under federal jurisdiction. If the federal government truly wishes to help the provinces and Quebec, it should convene a summit to discuss a sustainable increase in health care funding and health transfers, as requested unanimously by Quebec and the provinces, which are united on this. I will come back to this point. The beginning of the second part of the motion states that, “in the opinion of the House, the government should work with the provinces and territories to (i) improve the quality and availability of long-term care homes and beds”. Quebec already has a plan for revamping its health care system. Parliamentary debates will be held to improve the plan, to determine whether it is sound and to look at the pros and cons, but that is the responsibility of the elected members of the Quebec National Assembly, not the House of Commons. What our health care systems are missing is financial resources, meaningful recurrent investments, and a substantial increase in the federal government's contribution. That means increasing federal health transfers from 22% of system costs to 35% and increasing the escalator from 3% to 6% per year. That is what is being called for by Quebec and the provinces, as well as by many other stakeholders. I will come back to that later. The second point in the second paragraph of the motion states, “implement strict infection prevention and control measures, including through more provincial and territorial facility inspections for long-term care homes”. Quebec has assessed, and continues to assess, its actions during the pandemic. It is not up to the federal government to tell Quebec what to do or how to do it. Besides, the feds do not even have the required expertise. The best solution the federal government can come up with is to take best practices found from coast to coast to coast and impose them, as if that were within its jurisdiction. The third point in that second paragraph states, “develop a safe long-term care act collaboratively to ensure that seniors are guaranteed the care they deserve, no matter where they live”. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously opposed such federal standards, and let us not forget that the House of Commons voted against imposing standards when the NDP moved a motion in March 2021, in the 43rd Parliament. The Liberals voted against that at the time. The Liberal Party must be suffering from amnesia, because during this 44th Parliament, it is at it again with this motion. I have to say, since the advent of the NDP-Liberal government, positions have become muddled. One thing remains clear: their appetite for interfering in things that do not concern them. Has a federal government ever been defeated in an election over issues related to health? The answer is no, because the provision of health care is not a federal responsibility. In Quebec, we have often seen governments get the boot over health-related matters. Health has been an exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces since 1867. Quebec has exclusive authority over health, except when it comes to the health of indigenous peoples, military hospitals, drug approval and quarantines. It is therefore up to Quebeckers to have this debate and make the decision. In a democracy, it is up to voters to sanction their government. A debate has been raging for months in Quebec over the issue of long-term care and the decisions that were made during the COVID‑19 crisis. That debate is still going on, and it is the Quebec government that will take steps to correct the situation and the public that will decide, this October, if it is satisfied with the actions of its government. Quebec already has solutions. It does not need the federal government to provide them. In his November 23, 2021, report, the ombudsman pointed out flaws, but he mostly identified measures that the Quebec government must implement so that this never happens again. In response to that report, the Quebec government presented its plan for reforming the health care system. The plan includes an array of measures, such as large-scale recruitment, better access to data, the construction of new hospitals, and increased accountability for executives. Additionally, the coroner is still investigating. People are calling for a public inquiry into the situation at long-term care facilities. In any case, it is up to Quebeckers to take stock of the situation and to fix their system. I have said it before, and I will say it again: Quebec already has standards. Quebec's Act respecting health services and social services includes regulations for long-term care homes. I remind members that 86% of long-term care homes in Quebec are public facilities. The report prepared by the Canadian Armed Forces at the end of its deployment to Quebec's long-term care homes is clear. There are already plenty of standards and rules for things like contamination prevention and control and PPE. However, that was not enough to stop the virus. Why was Canada's federal stockpile empty? Why did we send PPE to mainland China when we were about to be hit hard by the virus? The government should answer these questions before lecturing others. The main reason these rules were more difficult to follow is also very clear: There was a labour shortage. I will quote the Canadian Armed Forces report: “According to our observations, the critical need for CHSLDs is an improved level of staff with medical training”. If the federal government truly wants to help the provinces and Quebec get through the pandemic and improve care for our seniors, it needs to stop patronizing us. It needs to drop this idea of mandatory national standards that are ill suited to the different social and institutional contexts, and it needs to increase health transfers, which will allow the provinces and Quebec to attract and retain more health care workers. That is the federal government's job. It needs to increase health transfers. It knows that, but it thinks it can keep making one-time investments instead of recurring investments, even though we need to get through this pandemic. The Bloc Québécois is steadfast in its demand for the federal government to immediately increase health transfers to 35% of costs and to index them going forward. The Parliament of Canada itself made this demand when it adopted a Bloc Québécois motion calling on the government to significantly and sustainably increase Canada health transfers to support the efforts of the governments of Quebec and the provinces, health care workers and the public. All of the premiers have made this demand. The Quebec National Assembly has made this demand. All of the unions, the FTQ, the CSN, the CSQ and the CSD, have made this demand, pointing out that the systemic funding problems facing the provinces and Quebec are hampering Canadians and Quebeckers from accessing the services they need. On April 4, 2022, the Quebec medical community, including the Fédération des médecins omnipraticiens du Québec, the Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec and the Association des médecins hématologues et oncologues du Québec, along with several unions, joined the Bloc in calling on the federal government to hold a public summit on health care funding. All voters across Quebec and Canada want our health care systems to be improved. According to a Leger poll, 85% of voters support the recommendation made by the premiers and their united stance. This motion is as pointless as the last election. It is not standards that will ensure better care, but rather the funding needed to deliver that care.

1482 words

All Topics

Apr/25/22 11:23:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it should come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois will oppose the motion. Let us look at the reasons why. First of all, not everything in motion is bad. For example, to the first point, everyone in Quebec agrees that the COVID-19 pandemic tragically exposed long-standing issues affecting long-term care facilities and the frontline workers who care for residents themselves—

71 words

All Topics

Apr/7/22 2:18:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today is World Health Day and the theme this year is “Our planet, our health”. Since the environment is one of the primary determinants of health and, unfortunately, of disease, it is more important than ever to rethink the world and our society so our children and grandchildren will have the opportunity to grow up in a healthy environment with the best possible living conditions. Talking will not get us there, only action will. The government must decide, once and for all, to be consistent, take action, and assume its responsibilities by protecting the environment and funding health care. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those in the health sector who are doing all the heavy lifting and who can no longer wait for ongoing, significant and unconditional funding. Health is a collective responsibility. We must decide to make it a priority.

152 words

Apr/7/22 12:40:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague—whom I have listened to ever since 2015 when I first came to the House, where he has talked up the vitality of francophone communities on the Prairies—I do have a question. If it is true that this vitality exists, notwithstanding the considerable merits of these communities, how can it be that my colleague, who bears a French name, is a unilingual anglophone now?

76 words

Apr/7/22 12:33:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, my colleague is well aware that the House supposedly recognized the Quebec nation as a nation. If Quebec is recognized as a nation, there should be some kind of statute saying so. The number of seats is one thing, but if the number of seats everywhere else goes up, Quebec will lose its political weight. If a senatorial clause is good for Prince Edward Island, would my colleague agree that we could have a Quebec clause for the Quebec nation?

82 words

All Topics

Apr/7/22 12:08:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his fascinating and impassioned history lesson. His students must have been riveted. The Liberal and Conservative parties claim to have recognized the Quebec nation. As long as their recognition is symbolic, there is no problem. However, when it has a legislative impact, they and the NDP balk. That is precisely what is happening in the House. The motion presented by the Bloc on its opposition day said that we did not want to lose any seats or political weight and that they must be maintained. We tabled a bill well before the supposed NDP agreement, and everyone voted for it except for a few Conservatives. Could my colleague explain the House's logic and coherence, given that it is prepared to symbolically recognize the Quebec nation but not to attach any legislative meaning to that recognition?

146 words

Context: House Hansard - 54 - Apr/6/22

Apr/7/22 11:42:07 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, my colleague gave a very interesting speech. However, his party voted in favour of the motion that was debated on a previous supply day that read in part, and I quote: ... (a) any scenario for redrawing the federal electoral map that would result in Quebec losing one or more electoral districts or that would reduce Quebec’s political weight in the House of Commons must be rejected; .... He cannot be happy that, today, Bill C-14 meets and delivers on only one of the conditions he voted for. If he recognizes Quebec as a nation, he will agree with us and vote in favour of our bill, which will ensure that the Quebec nation's political weight is maintained by allocating 25% of the seats in the House to Quebec.

134 words

Context: House Hansard - 52 - Apr/4/22

Apr/6/22 3:02:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot dismiss out of hand the expertise of those responsible for health care. They are the backbone of the health care system. Today, these men and women are calling for a substantial, recurrent, no-strings-attached increase in federal funding. They want to plan the future of health care. They want predictability. Why will the Prime Minister not immediately commit to participating in a summit with them?

72 words

Context: House Hansard - 50 - Mar/31/22

Apr/4/22 2:40:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the people speaking out today are the women and men who care for others every day around the clock. They want their voices to be heard. They know what they need, because that is their job. They are not here today to play partisan politics. They are here to be invited to share their experience at a public summit on health care funding. The real experts want to tell us how to care for our people properly, today and tomorrow. Why not accept their offer?

87 words

Context: House Hansard - 50 - Mar/31/22

Mar/31/22 1:16:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, at the start of his speech, the member spoke about the Liberal government's goal of maintaining a balanced budget while also adhering to the very worthy plan of safeguarding social programs. However, I wonder why this government is depriving itself of the gargantuan profits made by the big banks in 2021, nearly $60 billion. Why are the Liberals opposed to eliminating tax havens?

67 words

Context: House Hansard - 47 - Mar/28/22

Mar/31/22 12:33:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives want to cut the deficit and taxes while still taking care of people. It is as though money were falling from the sky. Money does not fall from the sky, but we do know where to find some. Major Canadian banks made fat profits of nearly $60 billion in 2021. Why has his party always opposed abolishing tax havens for major Canadian banks?

68 words

Context: House Hansard - 45 - Mar/24/22

Mar/28/22 11:38:06 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-230

Madam Speaker, the bill we are debating today has to do with protecting the freedom of conscience of health care professionals and practitioners when it comes to medical assistance in dying. I think we should base our debate on the approach that Quebec took on this matter back in 2010. Quebec studied this issue from 2010 to 2014. The debates were non-partisan. The process allowed for all points of view to be heard and compiled. The focus of the debate was human dignity. When talking about end-of-life care, we must not forget that the way to protect human dignity lies in freedom of choice. No one can claim to be acting in a patient's best interests if that patient is not allowed to make their own decisions. What is interesting about the Conservatives' bill is that they want the state to be less involved in the economy but more involved in our lives, especially when it comes to death, which is one of the intimate decisions a human being will make. It is not the state or Conservative members who are going to die in place of the individual, the person who is dying, the patient, so why are they trying to interfere in this decision? This bill is pointless, and I say this because subsection 241.2(9) already stipulates that no one can be compelled or forced to provide medical assistance in dying against their will. As I just mentioned, the Quebec legislation should guide us in our debate here today. Section 31 of the Quebec legislation stipulates that medical practitioners cannot be forced to participate directly or indirectly in MAID, and I quote: A physician practising in a centre operated by an institution who refuses a request for medical aid in dying for a reason not based on section 29 [which sets out all the conditions that a doctor must meet before deciding whether to provide medical assistance in dying] must, as soon as possible, notify the executive director of the institution or any other person designated by the executive director and forward the request form given to the physician, if that is the case, to the executive director or designated person. The executive director of the institution or designated person must then take the necessary steps to find, as soon as possible, another physician willing to deal with the request in accordance with section 29. This means that a patient who is dying and highly vulnerable should not be burdened with having to take the steps I just mentioned. The bill the Conservatives are introducing today would do just that. It would force these individuals to take those steps at the most vulnerable time of their lives, when they are dying or about to die. However, medical practitioners can refuse to participate directly or indirectly in MAID. As we heard during the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights' study of Bill C-7, some practitioners, citing freedom of conscience, are currently refusing to abide by the Collège des médecins du Québec's code of ethics and forward the request. In other words, they are ignoring the request, which they are not allowed to do. In Quebec, conscientious objection is defined as follows: “Health professionals must not ignore a request for medical aid in dying. However, a doctor may refuse to administer medical aid in dying because of his or her personal values. The doctor must notify, as soon as possible, the executive director of the institution”. That is the issue. The Conservatives have introduced a bill to add a provision to the Criminal Code that would make what they call intimidation in health care facilities an offence. This would be a situation where a health care professional dealing with a family supporting a dying patient—a father, a mother, a brother, a sister—offers end-of-life options without ever mentioning medical assistance in dying. That is the kind of scenario we are talking about. Quebec was a leader in this area and contributed to advancing the legislation, but there is still a lot of resistance on the ground when a patient requests medical assistance in dying. That can manifest in various ways. The surprising thing is that this resistance stands in stark contrast to what I consider the essence of Quebec's legislation, which was to integrate end-of-life care into the palliative care continuum. In the current debate, there is one side advocating for palliative care and another advocating for medical assistance in dying. Quebec's legislation did not fall into the trap of such unnecessary division. Palliative care should be accessible, and the continuum of palliative care can give rise to a request for medical assistance in dying. A request for MAID emerges when a patient is given the opportunity to make a free and informed choice. A person's dignity must not be defined by how they die, and it cannot be compromised because death is considered to be distasteful. To respect a human being is to respect their dignity, and that means respecting their independence and capacity for self-determination until their last breath. The law enshrines the principle of self-determination throughout our lives, especially when it comes to medical decisions. No one can interfere with my person without my free and informed consent. Why then, at the most intimate moment in my life, would the state interfere in my life and take away my right to self-determination? I can only make a free choice if the practitioner is able to offer me all the choices, including access to palliative care, palliative sedation, and medical assistance in dying. This is a decision that only a dying person can make. These types of bills and debates take us away from far nobler objectives. There is nothing new here to crow about; it was already set out in the legislation. I would like members to understand why the Bloc Québécois will oppose this bill. We oppose this bill because at present, in Quebec, some people requesting MAID in a hospital are not being admitted to a palliative care unit. It is shameful that people at the end of their lives must live their last moments in a place that is far from peaceful and far from what is recommended as appropriate for dying with dignity. Why oppose that? We must focus our efforts on having a continuum of care, working to ensure that palliative care is as available and accessible as possible in all forms, whether at home, in hospices, or elsewhere. A request for assisted death must be viewed not as a failure, but as a success in accompanying an individual towards death.

1136 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 45 - Mar/24/22

Mar/24/22 2:42:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in their agreement, the great experts in the NDP and the Liberal Party chose to tell Quebec and the provinces what they need, specifically how many nurses and doctors should be hired, where the money should go, and how their networks should be managed. However, the real experts are not on this side of the House, they are not across the way, nor are they sitting next to us. Quebec and the provinces know what they need. As we are on the verge of a sixth wave, will the government finally increase health transfers to 35% with no conditions?

101 words